David offers to sell Marcus his truck for $10,000 with payments of $300.00 per month at an interest rate of 10% per month. David and Marcus live in Arizona.Marcus says he will think about it. While Marcus is thinking about it, the State of Arizona passes a law that contracts cannot include payments at an interest rate that exceeds 8%.A week later, Marcus accepts Davids offer to buy the truck for $10,000 with payments of $300.00 per month at an interest rate of 10%.The following is true:

a.David and Marcus have a legal BILATERAL CONTRACT because David made the offer to sell the truck at the interest rate of 10% before the State passed the new law.

b. In order to become a contract, the only way to form the contract is that Marcus would need to offer to buy the truck for $10,000 at $300.00 per month for an interest rate that does notexceed 8% in order for a contract to be created.

c.The fact that the State changed the interest rate for contracts does not apply AFTER an offer has been made.

d. David and Marcus cannot legally enter into the contract at an interest rate of 10%, thus Davids offer is terminated.

e.None of the above

Sharon signed a landlord-tenant agreement for 12 months from January 2020 to January 2021, that states as a tenant, Sharon cannot have animals in the apartment. The contract also states that if the tenant allows an animal in the apartment, they will be charged a $100.00 fee.The landlord-tenant agreement specifically states in writing that NO pets are allowed in the apartments. Sharon signs the contract. Sharons landlord Julie signs the contract as well.About 3 months later in March 2020, landlord Julie comes to Sharons apartment to fix a broken light. Sharon tells Julie about a dog she found alone in the street and tells Julie that the dog is temporarily living in the apartment. Julie sees the dog running around in the apartment. Julie does not say anything other than she hopes Sharon can find a permanent home for the dog.At the end of the year when Sharon is moving out, Julie charges Sharon $100.00 for having an animal in the apartment. In the original landlord-tenant agreement, it specifically states that if a tenant has an animal in the apartment, they will owe $100.00.The following is true:

a.If Sharon wanted to contest the $100.00 penalty, Sharon could file a lawsuit against Julie and claim that Julie agreed that the dog could stay in Sharons apartment because Sharon told Julie about the dog and Julie did not expressly tell Sharon she was violating the landlord-tenant contract. The Court would most likely waive the $100.00.

b, If Sharon filed a lawsuit against Julie claiming that she did not owe the $100.00 for the dog, the Court would most likely rely upon the plain language of the contract when the Court is interpreting the contract and uphold that Sharon owes $100.00 for the animal in her apartment.

c.Julies knowledge that Sharon had a dog in her apartment was an express agreement and acknowledgement of the dog and thus, expressly changes the original landlord-tenant agreement.

d. Sharon and Julie entered into a Unilateral Contract whereupon Sharon would pay the $100.00 penalty for the dog if Julie would allow the dog to remain in the apartment and Julie allowed the dog to remain in the apartment because she did not object to the dog when Sharon told Julie about the do

Michelle offers to sell her beautiful living room painting to Roger for $4000.00. Roger responds by stating that he cannot afford the $4000.00 and will not pay $4000.00, but he would offer to purchase the painting for $3000.00. Michelle agrees to sell the painting to Roger for $3000.00. The next day, Michelle delivers the painting to Roger at his home and Roger gives Michelle a check for $3000.00. The following is true:

a.Michelle is the original OFFEROR and Roger is the OFFEREE. When Roger states that he cannot afford the $4000.00 and offers to pay $3000.00, Michelle is still the OFFEROR and Roger is the OFFEREE. Once the contract was formed, Michelles promise is executed and Rogers promise is executed.

b. Michelle is the original OFFEROR and Roger is the OFFEREE. When Roger states that he cannot purchase the painting for $4000.00, but offers to purchase the painting for $3000.00, Roger rejects Michelles offer through preliminary negotiations. Roger is now the OFFEROR and Michelle is the OFFEREE. Once the contract was formed, Michelles promise is now executory and Rogers promise is now executed.

c.Michelle is the original OFFEROR and Roger is the OFFEREE. When Roger states that he cannot afford $4000.00 but offers to pay $3000.00, Roger rejects Michelles offer and Roger is the OFFEROR and Michelle is the OFFEREE. Once the contract was formed, Michelles promise is now executed and Rogers promise is now executed.

d. None of the above

Bruce offers to sell his new and improved IPAD to Ben for $2000.00. Bruce makes the offer on November 1, 2020. Ben says he will think about it.On November 2, 2020, Ben writes a hand-written letter to Bruce stating that he accepts the offer and will pay $2000.00 for the IPAD. Ben mails off the letter to Bruce on November 2, 2020 at 2:00 p.m.On November 2, 2020, at 9:30 p.m., Bruces brother Brandon calls Bruce and Bruce tells Brandon that he is selling his IPAD for $2000.00. Brandon accepts the offer, drives to Bruces home and pays Bruce the $2000.00 at 10:30 p.m. on November 2, 2020. Bruce gives Brandon the IPAD.The following is true:

a.There is a contract between Bruce and Ben. Bruce is the OFFEROR and Ben is the OFFEREE. Bruce is bound to sell the IPAD to Ben.

b. There is a contract between Bruce and Brandon and not a contract between Bruce and Ben. Bruce and Brandon executed their agreement which nullifies any agreement between Bruce and Ben.

c.There is a contract between Bruce and Brandon because Brandon accepted the offer to purchase the IPAD before Ben accepted the offer to purchase the IPAD.

d. None of the above