Answer all the following questions: True or false:

Van could decide to pay the additional amount or rescind the contract because: a. The parties made a bilateral mistake as to a material fact at the time the parties entered into b. the contract Van made an unforeseen unilateral mistake about the construction site at the time of the parties entered into the contract. The additional amount is unenforceable due to the preexisting duty rule. The situation is unconscionable. c. d. Sam offers to sell a high-speed modem to Randy bv faxing him an offer which was received at 9:00 am, Rand 5:00 pm Sam sees Randy in person and revokes the offer. An agreement: a. Does not exist because Sam revoked the offer in person. b. Does not exist because Sam revoked the offer before receiving acceptance from Randy, c. Exists because of the mailbox rule. d. Exists because Randy dispatched acceptance using the mail. y dispatches his acceptance to Sam using the postal service at noon that same day. That evening at Jay is mentally incompetent having been so adjudged by a court. Any contract Jay enters into is: a. voidable because his actions could be interpreted as being outrageous. b. voidable because he lacks the mental capacity to comprehend the consequences having proved it in court. void because he lacks the mental capacity to comprehend the consequences having proved it in court none of the above c. d. Bob agrees to sell to Carol, for $1,500, a remote parcel of land. They both exercise poor business judgment and fail to have the land appraised, and believe the land to be worthless, but beneath the land is a gold mine. A court would a. cancel the contract due to Bob's failure to know the land's real market value. b. cancel the contract due to Carol's failure to accurately estimate the price of the land. c. cancel the contract because it would be unconscionable. d. enforce the contract because poor business judgment does not excuse one's obligation to perform as agreed in a contract. A person who is intoxicated when he or she signs a contract can void the contract only if his or her intoxication was involuntary. In most cases, a dog catcher would not qualify for a reward for a lost dog because the offeror has a contract defense that there was no consideration of the unilateral offer. A person seeking to void a contract based on intoxication must show that he or she was so intoxicated as to fail to comprehend the legal consequences of entering into the contract