1. Developer and Owner contract to develop and sell Owner's land as an upscale subdivision built around a golf course. When the subdivision is developed, the adjacent land owned by Farmer will dramatically increase in value. If the deal between Developer and Owner falls through, Farmer will be able to bring an action against:

a)Developer, because Farmer is a donee beneficiary.

b)Owner, because Farmer is a donee beneficiary.

c)Developer and Owner, because Farmer is a creditor beneficiary.

d)No one, because Farmer is an incidental beneficiary.

2.Developer and Owner contract to develop and sell Owner's land as an upscale subdivision built around a golf course. The development agreement includes the construction of a model home, which the contract provides will pass to Owner's Daughter when all of the other lots in the subdivision are sold. If the deal between Developer and Owner falls through, Daughter will be able to bring an action against:

a)Developer, because Daughter is a donee beneficiary.

b)Owner, because Daughter is a donee beneficiary.

c)Developer and Owner, because Daughter is a creditor beneficiary.

d)No one, because Daughter is an incidental beneficiary.

Developer and Owner contract to develop and sell Owner's land as an upscale subdivision built around a golf course. The development agreement includes the construction of a model home, which the contract provides will pass to Owner's Daughter when all of the other lots in the subdivision are sold. Developer asks Daughter to choose the carpet and paint colors for the model home, and Daughter sends a thank you note to Owner. If the deal between Developer and Owner falls through, Daughter will:

a)be able to bring an action to enforce her rights, because Daughter relied to her detriment on the promised performance.

b)be able to bring an action to enforce her rights, because Daughter assented to the promised performance.

c)not be able to bring an action to enforce her rights, because Daughter assented to the promised performance using the correct form.

d)not be able to bring an action to enforce her rights, because Daughter is a donee beneficiary.

4.Developer and Owner contract to develop and sell Owner's land as an upscale subdivision built around a golf course. The development agreement includes the construction of a model home, which the contract provides will pass to Owner's Daughter when all of the other lots in the subdivision are sold. The agreement also requires Daughter to assent to receiving the model home by signing a waiver relieving Developer of any liability for defects in the construction of the model home. Developer asks Daughter to choose the carpet and paint colors for the model home, and Daughter sends a thank you note to Owner. If the deal between Developer and Owner falls through, Daughter will:

a) be able to bring an action to enforce her rights, because Daughter relied to her detriment on the promised performance.

b) be able to bring an action to enforce her rights, because Daughter assented to the promised performance.

c) not be able to bring an action to enforce her rights, because Daughter has not assented to the promised performance using the correct form.

d) not be able to bring an action to enforce her rights, because Daughter is an incidental beneficiary.

Store contracts to rent retail space from Landlord. To pay off a loan, Landlord assigns the right to receive the rent payments to Bank. Landlord never tells Store about the assignment to Bank, and Store makes rent payments to Landlord for the period of the lease. If Landlord never forwards the payments to Bank:

a)Bank cannot enforce the assignment, because Store was never informed of the assignment.

b)Bank cannot enforce the assignment, because Landlord has revoked the assignment by the conduct of retaining the rent payments.

c)Bank can enforce the assignment, but only because the assignment was for consideration.

d)Bank can enforce the assignment, even though Store was never informed of the assignment.

Baker contracts with Restaurant to make pastries for Restaurant's Sunday brunch buffet. The contract requires Baker to do final baking and assembly on Restaurant's premises, and to oversee the presentation of the pastries on the buffet. Restaurant publicizes its use of Baker's pastries in its advertising. After contracting to make pastries for Hotel's Sunday brunch buffet, Baker delegates the duty to perform the contract with Restaurant to Boulanger. The delegation to Boulanger:

a)is invalid, because it was done without Restaurant's consent.

b)is invalid, if Baker's performance under the Baker-Restaurant contract is a personal service.

c)is valid, if Baker's performance under the Baker-Restaurant contract is not a personal service and Boulanger's skills are equal to that of Baker.

d)Either B or C.

Barry owned an office building that was substantially damaged by fire. Barry wants to hire Watson to make the necessary repairs and is told by Watson that he (Watson) does not have good credit due to a family illness and would therefore have trouble obtaining credit. Barry and Watson agree upon and include a clause in the construction contract that states that Barry "promises to pay anyone who provides goods and materials to Watson for use in the repair of the building." The contract also provided that the parties' duties were "non-assignable." Watson paid for all of the materials he ordered except for the last $1,000 of lumber. Watson sent a letter to the supplier and told him that he was unable to pay the bill at the present time. He also included a copy of the contract with the letter to advise the supplier, for the first time regarding the terms of his agreement.

Watson asked Barry to pay the supplier and Barry refused, citing a business turndown and a severe illness in his own family. Barry told Watson that he was selling the building to Carla and wanted a release from the contract. Watson felt sorry for Barry and sent him a letter releasing him from the contract and agreeing to complete the repairs for Carla. Watson sent a copy of this letter to the supplier. Watson completed the work and then Barry paid the total contract price (but not the $1,000 to the supplier). Watson ran out of money before he paid the supplier.

In an action by the supplier against Barry, on the Barry-Watson contract, Barry's best argument in his defense is that:

a)The non-assignment clause in Barry-Watson contract is void as against public policy.

b)The supplier has not materially changed its position in reliance upon the Barry-Watson contract.

c)Third parties cannot acquire valid claims under this type of contract.

d)Barry relied to his detriment on Watson's letter of release.

Fetterman entered into a lease agreement with Connie's Construction Company on April 1, 2013. The term of the lease was until March 31, 2028. The lease provided for payments of $100,000 commencing on April 1, 2013, and continuing on the 1st day of April at five-year intervals. The lease agreement also provided that Fetterman would receive the first payment, but thereafter, payments were to be paid to Fetterman's wife, Debbie. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the lease, Fetterman had power to change the beneficiary of future rent payments and to assign the agreement. In May of 2014, while experiencing financial difficulties, Connie's Construction Company, contracted with Arnie's Construction Company, wherein the parties agreed that Connie's would provide certain construction services for Arnie's and Arnie's would perform Connie's duties pursuant to the lease agreement with Fetterman. In July of 2014, Fetterman borrowed $300,000 from his son, Steven.

On January 15, 2015, Fetterman took Debbie off of the lease agreement as a beneficiary and put his son, Steven on instead in exchange for Steven's promise to cancel the $300,000 loan. Steven, wrote a letter thanking his father - and he also sent notes to Connie's and Arnie's advising them of the beneficiary change and his present address. He also stated that "in light of my father's decision, I have terminated my job with the water department and am going to pursue my dream of becoming a famous painter."

In June 2016, Fetterman borrowed $15,000 from his bank and assigned the lease agreement as security. Connie's business made a strong comeback in 2017, enabling Connie's and Arnie's to terminate their contract. At all times, Connie's remained in possession of the premises, but in April of 2018, Connie's failed to make the $100,000 payment. Fetterman failed to pay the $15,000 to the bank.

The bank sued Connie's for $15,000. Steven intervened claiming that the bank had no right to any sum under the lease agreement. Who prevails?

a) The bank, it is entitled to the $15,000, because consideration was given for the assignment.

b)Steven, because he was named beneficiary before Fetterman made the assignment, and the beneficiary, being first in time, prevails over the assignee.

c)The bank, it is entitled to the $15,000 because Fetterman reserved power to change the beneficiary and to assign the agreement.

d)Steven, because he is a donee beneficiary and the promisee cannot modify or rescind any part of a donee beneficiary's right.

Fetterman entered into a lease agreement with Connie's Construction Company on April 1, 2013. The term of the lease was until March 31, 2028. The lease provided for payments of $100,000 commencing on April 1, 2013, and continuing on the 1st day of April at five-year intervals. The lease agreement also provided that Fetterman would receive the first payment, but thereafter, payments were to be paid to Fetterman's wife, Debbie. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the lease, Fetterman had power to change the beneficiary of future rent payments and to assign the agreement. In May of 2014, while experiencing financial difficulties, Connie's Construction Company contracted with Arnie's Construction Company, wherein the parties agreed that Connie's would provide certain construction services for Arnie's and Arnie's would perform Connie's duties pursuant to the lease agreement with Fetterman. In July of 2014, Fetterman borrowed $300,000 from his son, Steven.

On January 15, 2015, Fetterman took Debbie off of the lease agreement as a beneficiary and put his son, Steven, on instead in exchange for Steven's promise to cancel the $300,000 loan. Steven wrote a letter thanking his father - and he also sent notes to Connie's and Arnie's advising them of the beneficiary change and his present address. He also stated that "in light of my father's decision, I have terminated my job with the water department and am going to pursue my dream of becoming a famous painter."

In June 2016, Fetterman borrowed $15,000 from his bank and assigned the lease agreement as security. Connie's business made a strong comeback in 2017, enabling Connie's and Arnie's to terminate their contract. At all times, Connie's remained in possession of the premises, but in April of 2018, Connie's failed to make the $100,000 payment. Fetterman failed to pay the $15,000 to the bank.

If Steven sued Connie's Construction Company to collect the $100,000, who will win?

a)Steven wins because he is subrogated to Connie's right against Arnie's.

b)Steven loses because he should have sued Arnie's Construction Company before proceeding against Connie's Construction Company.

c)Steven loses because he should have sued Connie's Construction Company and Arnie's Construction Company jointly.

d)Steven wins because he has a right against Connie's and Arnie's and he may elect to bring suit against Connie's.

Fetterman entered into a lease agreement with Connie's Construction Company on April 1, 2013. The term of the lease was until March 31, 2028. The lease provided for payments of $100,000 commencing on April 1, 2013, and continuing on the 1st day of April at five-year intervals. The lease agreement also provided that Fetterman would receive the first payment, but thereafter, payments were to be paid to Fetterman's wife, Debbie. In addition, pursuant to the terms of the lease, Fetterman had power to change the beneficiary of future rent payments and to assign the agreement. In May of 2014, while experiencing financial difficulties, Connie's Construction Company, contracted with Arnie's Construction Company, wherein the parties agreed that Connie's would provide certain construction services for Arnie's and Arnie's would perform Connie's duties pursuant to the lease agreement with Fetterman. In July of 2014, Fetterman borrowed $300,000 from his son, Steven.

On January 15, 2015, Fetterman took Debbie off of the lease agreement as a beneficiary and put his son, Steven on instead in exchange for Steven's promise to cancel the $300,000 loan. Steven wrote a letter thanking his father - and he also sent notes to Connie's and Arnie's advising them of the beneficiary change and his present address. He also stated that "in light of my father's decision, I have terminated my job with the water department and am going to pursue my dream of becoming a famous painter."

In June 2016, Fetterman borrowed $15,000 from his bank and assigned the lease agreement as security. Connie's business made a strong comeback in 2017, enabling Connie's and Arnie's to terminate their contract. At all times, Connie's remained in possession of the premises, but in April of 2018, Connie's failed to make the $100,000 payment. Fetterman failed to pay the $15,000 to the bank.

If Steven sued Arnie's Construction Company for the payment, how should the court rule?

a)Against Steven, because the change of beneficiary clause in the lease agreement prevented Steven's right under contract between the two concrete companies from vesting prior to time rent became due and the two companies rescinded their contract.

b)Against Steven, because Steven is an incidental beneficiary of the contract between the two concrete companies.

c)For Steven, because Steven is a donee beneficiary of Arnie's promise and assent is presumed.

d)For Steven, because Steven is a creditor beneficiary of Arnie's promise, notice was given to Steven, and he assented and changed his position in reliance.