1. Tony, a hateful, disgruntled, business law teacher notices that a student, Peter, who is past the age of majority, has a nice motorcycle that is for sale. Peter has struggled through school, is in his last semester, and needs to pass business law in order to graduate. Tony tells Peter that he would like to see Peter pass and, in the next sentence, says that he wants to buy the motorcycle for $100, a price far below the value of the motorcycle. Peter asks if Tony is serious about the price, and Tony replies, "I have the power here! Take it or leave it!" Tony proceeds to draw up a contract for the sale of the motorcycle for $100 which Peter signs. Peter does some research and finds that Tony has had several arrests for driving under the influence in a nearby town. As an act of revenge, Peter tells Tony that unless Tony sells Peter his new Mustang convertible for $50, he is publishing the facts about the arrests in the school newspaper. Tony reluctantly agreed to the deal. Which of the following is true if Tony seeks to rescind the contract for the sale of the Mustang?

Tony may rescind the contract on grounds of duress.

Tony may rescind the contract on grounds of misappropriation of name or likeness.

Tony may rescind the contract on grounds of fraud.

Tony may not rescind the contract because truth is involved.

Tony may rescind the contract on grounds of defamation. 2. Which of the following is true regarding factors considered by a court in determining whether a party is an intended or incidental beneficiary?

The third party's ability to control the specifics of performance of the contract but not whether performance of the contract is done directly to the third party or whether the contract directly states that the third party is the benefiting party.

Whether the contract directly states that the third party is the benefiting party but not the third party's ability to control the specifics of performance of the contract or whether performance of the contract is done directly to the third party.

Whether performance of the contract is done directly to the third party and the third party's ability to control the specifics of performance of the contract, but not whether the contract directly states that the third party is the benefiting party.

Whether performance of the contract is done directly to the third party and whether the contract directly states that the third party is the benefiting party, but not the third party's ability to control the specifics of performance of the contract.

Whether performance of the contract is done directly to the third party, the third party's ability to control the specifics of performance of the contract, and whether the contract directly states that the third party is the benefiting party. 3. What is a purpose of the parol evidence rule?

		To restrict oral evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form.
		To restrict oral and written evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form.
		To restrict hearsay from being admitted that supports or contradicts an agreement in its written form.
		To restrict written evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form.
		To restrict evidence from being admitted that substantially contradicts an agreement in its written form.