28 and 29 multiple choice answer is

Morris posted a notice promising to pay a $250 reward to anyone who found his lost cat. Morris saw Edna, his neighbour, and drew her attention to the notice. She expressed sympathy, but said that she did not have time to help because she was rushing off to work. When she returned home early that afternoon, however, she went to Morris's house to tell him that she would look for the cat. Although he was not at home, she searched the area, found the animal, and returned it to his house. Morris now refuses to pay Edna the $250. A court would most likely say that Edna is entitled to 1. nothing because Morris is entitled to revoke his offer at any time 2. payment because a contract was created through her act of acceptance in acting on the offer 3. nothing because she was required to communicate her acceptance in writing 4. payment because the offeree decides whether an offer has been open for a reasonable period 5. nothing because she rejected Morris's offer when she said she had to rush to work QUESTION 29 In late April, Harper Corp placed an advertisement in a newspaper that said: "We cater parties. Up to 150 people for only $3000. No hidden fees or costs." The manager of Martin Inc telephoned Harper and left a voice message that said, "We are calling to place an order to have a party for 150 people on the first of June." The next day, the manager of Harper called Martin and explained that, due to a scheduling conflict, it could not stage a party on the first of June. Martin now says that a contract had been created and that Harper has breached that agreement. Which of the following statements is most likely to be TRUE? 1. Because a contract cannot be created between corporations, Harper Corp cannot be held liable to Martin Inc. 2. A contract was created between the parties as soon as Martin left its message on Harper's answering machine, regardless of whom Harper listened to that message 3: Because an advertisement is generally presumed to be an invitation to treat, Martin's telephone message was not a contractual acceptance 4. In classifying the nature and effect of Martin's telephone message, a judge would focus exclusively on the intention that Martin had at the time that he called. Martin's order