Gill, a wholesale fish seller, agreed to provide Blanchet's Restaurant with 1,000 pounds of fresh salmon per week throughout the months of July, August, and September. Things went as planned for July and August. However, Gill was unable to meet the requirements of the contract for the first two weeks of September because his boats simply did not catch that much, although other companies did better and the fish were available for Gill to purchase, but at a higher price than what Blanchet was paying him. Rather than sell at a loss, Gill simply did not supply during that two-week period. At the end of that period, the Federal Fisheries Department shut down the fishery altogether because of the depletion of fish. After that, no more fresh salmon were available at all. Blanchet sued Gill for breach of contract with respect to his failure to deliver any fresh salmon in September. Which one of the following statements accurately sets out the legal situation here? Gill is liable for breach of contract with respect to the first two weeks of Seplember, but the second two weeks' failure was caused by frustration for which he was not responsible Gill was under a strict obligation to supply the fish and no excuses for fallure are allowed By not suing Gill as soon as he falled to deliver in the first two weeks of September, Blanchet lost the right to chsuldain, and then the subsequent govemmental closure excused his fallure to deliver any fish in September The contract was frustrated for the whole month of September by Gilis inabilisillo obtain fish in the way that he intended, and thus he is not liable at all (A Moving to another question will save this response. Question 1 of 40> Justin was a contractor for MT Construction. Justin was driving his work truck along a busy road on his way to a client's home to complete a kitchen renovation. Suddenly the ladder he secured to the roof of his car flew off into the traffic behind him. Joseph was driving behind Justin and swerved to avoid the ladder, hitting Jasmine, who was cycling on the shoulder of the road. Jasmine was not wearing a helmet. Witnesses stated that Joseph was exceeding the speed limit. MT Construction says that it equipped Justin's truck with a proper roof rack which should have made the ladder very secure, and that Justin must have ignored instructions on how to attach the ladder. As a result of the accident, Jasmine suffered a broken arm and leg as well as facial injuries. Which of the following statements is incorrect: MT Construction is vicariously liable for Justin's negligence Jasmine is contributorily negligent for her injuries Joseph is liable for the accident because he was speeding Only Justin is liable for the accident Wrazy Watersports Inc. Doran was driving his truck along a busy country road on his way to windsurfing board that he was a nearby lake where he was ask Crazy Watersports to show off their products. Suddenly th swerved to avoid the windsurfing board to the roof of his car flew off into the traffic behind him. Bessie was driving behind Doran ar Witnesses stated that Bessie was exced, hitting Jamil, who was cycling on the shoulder of the road. Jamil was not wearing a helme proper rack which should have madit. Crazy Watersports Inc. says that it had equipped Doran's truck with the board. As a result of the accident, Jamil suffered secure, and that Doran must have ignored instructions regarding attachment wrecked. Crazy Watersports can be held liable for Doran's actions if he is their employee. Only Doran is responsible for his actions, even if he is an employee of Crazy Watersports. Had it not been for Bessie, this accident would not have occurred. Jamil is responsible for any injuries he suffered, as he was not wearing a helmet. Rahilly entered into a contract with Khan, whereby Rahilly agreed to paint a portrait of Khan's wife to be completed by her 30 th birthday, six months from the time of this agreement. Three months before the portrait was to be completed, Rahilly told Khan that he would not be doing the portrait because he accepted a job in Boston and was leaving immediately. Which of the following is false with regard to the rights of the parties in this situation? Khan must wait to see if Rahilly really fails to perform the contract before Khan can sue The contract has not been frustrated because there was no unforeseen event beyond the control of either party making it impossible or meaningless to perform the contract If Khan presses Rahilly to perform according to the contract, it is possible that the contract could be ended by performance If Khan presses Rahilly to perform according to the contract, it is possible that the contract could be ended by frustration A Moving to another question will save this response. Question 5 of 40 Justin was a contractor for MT Construction. Justin was driving his work truck along a busy road on his way to a client's home to complete a kitchen renovation. Suddenly the ladder he secured to the roof of his car flew off into the traffic behind him. Joseph was driving behind Justin and swerved to avoid the ladder, hitting Jasmine, who was cycling on the shoulder of the road. Jasmine was not wearing a helmet. Witnesses stated that Joseph was exceeding the speed limit. MT Construction says that it equipped Justin's truck with a proper roof rack which should have made the ladder very secure, and that Justin must have ignored instructions on how to attach the ladder. As a result of the accident, Jasmine suffered a broken arm and leg as well as facial injuries. The legal test for negligence is The standard of care expected by the jurisdiction. Standard of care, breach of the standard of care, injuries and remoteness. Duty of care, standard of care, injuries and remoteness. Duty of care, standard of care, causation and damage. Read the following and indicate which agreement would not be a binding contract because of a problem with the requirement of consideration Assume all the other requirements for a binding contract have been met. Len agreed to sell and Karen agreed to buy four of Len's records for "some money." Mary promised in writing and under seal to give Planned Parenthood a donation of $100. Peter agreed to pay Ace Computers Ltd. $50 above the contract price if the company would have his new computer ready ten days earlier than the dat specified in the original contract Mr. Kooner sold a farm valued at $190,000 to his nephew for only $50,000. Rudolph and Randy are about to exit a store in a shopping mall when the store manager approaches them and accuses them of having stolen something Rudolph tells the manager that she is mistaken and beckons to Randy for them to leave. In a loud voice the Manager tells them: "If you dare leave this store before the police here, I will ensure that everyone in this mall know that you are a bunch of thieves." Rudolph and Randy decide to wait until the police get there is discovered that the manager had been mistaken. Which of the following statements is correct? Rudolph and Randy can successfully sue the store owners for false imprisonment Rudolph but not Randy can sue for false imprisonment as only he had expressed a desire to leave the store The store owner has not committed a tort as he was acting in good faith Rudolph and Randy were not falsely imprisoned as they were never physically restrained Ron has agreed to sell his car to Peter for $14000.00. Ron told Peter that the car had never been in an accident, was in good condition and drove like a dream. Ron knew that this was untrue, but wanted to get as much money as he could for the car. In fact, the car had been in two accidents, had substantial frame damage and could not be driven safely on the road. Assume that Peter had no way of checking on the condition of the car and that the principle of caveat emptor does not apply, in this situation, Ron's statement about the car is a fraudulent misrepresentation an innocent misrepresentation a negligent misrepresentation a mere invitation to treat In January, a driver accidentally caused a snowplough to go off the road, crash into a house, and enter the living room. No one was hurt, but the incident caused extensive damage to the house. If the driver of the snowplough was charged with the crime of driving while impaired, and convicted, which of the following is true? The owners of the house could also proceed in a civil action against the driver for the tort of negligence The driver would be found liable in a civil action only if the prosecutor could prove he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt The owners of the house would have no civil action against the driver because no one was hurt The owners of the house could not proceed in a civil action, because the driver had already gone through a criminal action and he cannot be forced to go through two proceedings for the action