Contracts Problem Forum

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Post Reply
User avatar
#NotACop

Bronze
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:00 am

Contracts Problem

Post by #NotACop » Wed May 06, 2015 5:10 pm

A is buying a house but needs insurance, goes to Insurance Agent B. B gives A a quote for a $1000 a year premium and up to $200k coverage. A gives B a check for $1000 dollars and B says there is a clause in the contract that states" This agreement shall become a contract only when the company approves the application at its headquarters and returns a complete policy form to the applicant."

Later on, A receives the approval application which states he is covered for up to $150k.

To be honest, I don't know if there is a valid contract, and if so which terms are valid. Unfortunately, there is no answer to go along with the exam.

User avatar
justkeepswimming794

New
Posts: 93
Joined: Tue Apr 21, 2015 3:54 am

Re: Contracts Problem

Post by justkeepswimming794 » Fri May 08, 2015 1:14 am

#NotACop wrote:A is buying a house but needs insurance, goes to Insurance Agent B. B gives A a quote for a $1000 a year premium and up to $200k coverage. A gives B a check for $1000 dollars and B says there is a clause in the contract that states" This agreement shall become a contract only when the company approves the application at its headquarters and returns a complete policy form to the applicant."

Later on, A receives the approval application which states he is covered for up to $150k.

To be honest, I don't know if there is a valid contract, and if so which terms are valid. Unfortunately, there is no answer to go along with the exam.
This is a contract. Its conditional, and seems weird, but it a contract for sure. there is valid consideration and the terms were adjusted, which again seems weird, but is expressly allowed under UCC 2-207

so long as A received the condition (the "complete policy form") its a contract. otherwise due to mutuality of obligation it wouldn't be. from your hypo's minimal details tho, it seems to be that there was.

Post Reply

Return to “Forum for Law School Students”