← Contracts Cases Test
5 Written Questions
5 Matching Questions
- Evertite Roofing v. Green
- Masterson v. Sine
- Glover v. Jewish War Veterans of US
- Dills v. Town of Enfield
- Heights Realty, Ltd. V. Phillips
- a Acceptance by beginning performance was given before notice of cancellation.
- b Doctrine of impracticability is not applicable. Occurrence of a foreseeable event, contemplated by the ps at time of K, does not render promised perf impractical and thereby excused.
- c Parol Evidence Rule here means that oral agreement disappears, but judge did not like that so he came up with a theory as to why: it was not an integrated K because it didn't have an integration clause
- d To show someone is not competent, the burden of proof rests on person asserting lack of capacity to establish same by clear and convincing proof
- e There is no contract when the party giving the desired information did not know of the offer of the reward.
5 Multiple Choice Questions
- Agree was express. Court ruled that each obligation was a condition to contract.
- One who errs in preparing a bid for public works K is entitled to equitable relief of rescission if he can establish five following conditions: (1) Mistake is material, (2) Enforcement would be unconscionable, (3) Mistake not result of duty or negligence, (4) Other party not prejudiced except by loss
- Actions and words indicate intent rather than what might be a real but unexpressed state of mind.
- Lovers end affair, man promises to pay her & she agrees not to make claims against him. Man files bankruptcy, woman sues. Point: No consideration. The woman had no valid claims against the man, so it isn't valid consideration
- Buyers backed out of r/e K based on financing conting, but did not use best efforts/good faith to secure financing. Must pursue conditions in good faith.
5 True/False Questions
Ferguson v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc. → An idea as consideration does not have to be novel, but it does have to have value.
Canadian Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Dunbar Molasses Co. → Risk was foreseeable & under control of one of the ps, so will not relieve performance due to impossibility. When Middleman Ks to supply goods from a third party & third party cannot supply goods, the middleman may not use the impossibility defense. A middle man takes a foreseeable risk & contributes to impossibility.
Suburban Leisure Center, Inc. v. AMF Bowling Products, Inc → B claimed merger clause in ecommerce agree incorporated both agrees into one. Crt disagreed &said they were two distinct agrees. The oral agree was a collateral agree...did not include same subject matter.
Konic International Corporation v Spokane Computer Services, Inc → (A Peerless Problem) No meeting of the minds...no K. Peerless doctrine only applies when parties have different understandings of their expression of agreement and both understandings are reasonable and no one is at fault.
Vokes v. Arthur Murray, Inc → Is it a misrepresentation of fact or opinion.