87. On April 15, Morgan sent a letter to Clark offering to sell her business to Clark for $200,000. The offer stated that it would expire on May 1. On April 30, Morgan sent another letter to Clark that stated that she was withdrawing the offer. Clark received that letter on May 1. Also on April 30, Clark sent a letter to Morgan accepting the offer. Morgan received that letter of acceptance on May 1. Morgan refused to sell the business to Clark, claiming that no contract had been formed. Clark brought suit to enforce the contract against Morgan. Based on what you have learned in this chapter, decide the probable outcome of the case. Explain your answer.

88. Jones and Clark entered into a written contract for the purchase of an apartment building by Clark. The contract was carefully drafted to set forth the agreement of the parties. It was signed by both parties. Clark subsequently claimed that the contract did not cover all the terms included in the written and oral agreements that the parties had made during their prior negotiations. Jones claimed that the parol evidence rule barred proof of all of their prior agreements. Which claim would be upheld in court? Why?

89. John received a promotion at work and felt new clothes would be necessary in the new position. John went to a local store and charged three ties on his charge account at a cost of $60 each. Bill, a friend of John's, saw a sidewalk vendor selling ties at a cost of three for $10 and bought three at that price. The friends compared purchases that night and found that they had purchased identical ties. John became enraged and said that he would not pay the charge-account bill because the ties were clearly not worth $60 each. Bill indicated that he would testify on John's behalf if litigation ensued. What would be the probable outcome of the lawsuit?

90. Roberta, an educated person, purchased real estate from Maurice. Roberta did not read entirely the contract that she signed. As a result, she did not notice the provision in the contract about the interest imposed on the unpaid portion of the purchase price, which was set at a usurious rate according to the relevant state law. She refused to pay the interest specified in the contract. Maurice sued her. Could he recover the principal and interest?