• Max is a radiologist working for Mercy Hospital.
• When Max was hired, he signed an employment agreement with Mercy Hospital.
• That employment agreement included a Non-Competition Clause that stated: If Max leaves the employ of Mercy Hospital, Max is prohibited from working as a radiologist in any hospital within 2,000 miles of Mercy Hospital.
• Max ends his employment at Mercy Hospital.
• Within a month, Max begins working for a different hospital 10 miles away.
• Mercy Hospital sues Max to enforce the Non-Competition Clause.

Which of the following is the most likely outcome of that lawsuit?

Group of answer choices

Max would win -- because the Non-Competition Clause was unreasonable.

Mercy Hospital would win -- because the Non-Competition Clause contains a latent ambiguity.

Mercy Hospital would win -- because the Non-Competition Clause didn't involve substantive unconscionability.

Max would win -- because the Non-Competition Clause was a unilateral mistake.

• Owner operates a commercial kitchen that supplies food to restaurants.
• A cooling unit of a walk-in freezer at the commercial kitchen breaks and must be shipped off for repair.
• Owner enters into a contract with Carrier to carry the cooling unit overnight to a repair facility.
• Owner tells Carrier that the commercial kitchen must be shut down and some food might spoil while the cooling unit is repaired and returned.
• Carrier assures Owner that the delivery will be made on time, and Carrier charges an extra premium for that expedited service.
• But, then Carrier negligently fails to get the cooling unit to the repair facility promptly.
• Rather, Carrier delivers it a day later than promised.
• Due to the extra delay, the commercial kitchen is shut down for an additional day, causing Owner significant damages due to additional food spoiling.
• Owner sues Carrier for those damages.

Which of the following is the most likely outcome of that lawsuit?

Group of answer choices

Owner will win -- because Owner's damages were reasonably foreseeable.

Owner will win -- because Owner's damages were liquidated.

Owner will lose -- because Owner's damages were NOT reasonably foreseeable.

Owner will lose -- because Owner did not rely on Carrier's assurances.

• Owner enters a contract with Builder for Builder to construct a condominium project.
• The contract provides that 10% of the total price will be withheld by Owner, and it will be paid to Builder only after an Inspector issues a Certificate of Completion.
• When the building is finished, the Inspector does NOT issue a Certificate of Completion because she states there are construction defects that need correction.
• Builder refuses to fix the defects because his crew has already moved on to other projects.
• Owner demands that Builder fix the defects, and refuses to release the final 10% payment without the Inspector's Certificate of Completion.
• Builder sues Owner for that withheld 10%.

In that lawsuit, Owner's best legal argument is:

Group of answer choices

Builder was obligated to do the work perfectly under the Perfect Tender Standard.

Builder substantially performed the contract and thus Promissory Estoppel applies.

Because Owner's duty to pay the final 10% was conditioned on the Inspector's Certificate of Completion, and that Certificate of Completion had not been issued, Owner had no duty to pay that final 10%.

Builder failed to adequately bribe the Inspector to issue a Certificate of Completion.

• Leroy has a piece of land that Melba wants to purchase.
• The following exchange takes place:

June 1 Melba mails an offer letter to Leroy, offering to buy his land for $50,000.

June 2 Melba mails a second letter to Leroy withdrawing her June 1 offer.

June 3 Leroy receives Melba's June 1 offer.

June 4 Leroy mails a letter to Melba accepting Melba's June 1 offer.

June 5 Leroy receives Melba's June 2 withdrawal of her June 1 offer.

• It is now June 6.

Do Leroy and Melba have a contract for the sale of the land, and why or why not?

Group of answer choices

Yes -- because Leroy mailed his acceptance of Melba's offer before he received Melba's withdrawal of her offer.

Yes -- because Melba's June 1 offer was made firm and irrevocable once she put it in the mailbox.

No -- because Melba effectively withdrew her June 1 offer before Leroy accepted that offer.

No -- because Melba and Leroy are lovers who met when Melba's dog, Rusty, was being dang awful about the squirrels and Melba had just about had enough. She contacted Leroy's cousin who she'd known back in grade school and he said she should call up Leroy. Leroy popped over and whispered something in Rusty's ear. From then on ol' Rusty was terrified of squirrels and Melba was in love. It is still unknown what Leroy whispered, but Melba did make out the word "nuts."

• Ace Company provides security services to businesses.
• Ace enters a contract with Giant Company to provide guards for Giant's warehouses for one year.
• After three months, Ace breaches the contract by failing to send guards.
• Giant insists that Ace perform its contract and send guards, but Ace refuses.
• Six months later, while there are still no guards at the warehouse, thieves break in and steal $500,000 worth of goods.
• Giant sues Ace, seeking to recover the $500,000 loss.

Which of the following is the most likely outcome of that lawsuit?

Group of answer choices

Giant will lose -- because Giant failed to take reasonable action to mitigate its potential damages.

Giant will win -- because Giant mitigated its potential damages.

Giant will lose -- because Giant's loss was not caused by Ace's breach but by the actions of third parties.

Giant will win -- because Giant's loss was a foreseeable result of Ace's breach, and the amount of Giant's loss was reasonably certain.

• Band signed an exclusive five-year management agreement with Manager.
• The agreement said Manager was to get 10% of all of Band's income from songwriting, performing, and recording for five years.
• The Agreement did not specify exactly what efforts Manager must undertake for Band, but only that Manager must "manage" them.

Most likely, the contract is:

Group of answer choices

Valid -- because the court will "read into" the contract the Implied Term of "Reasonable Efforts."

Valid -- because the court likes the Band's music.

Invalid -- because the deal is unconscionable.

Invalid -- because Manager is not obligated to do anything.

• eller and Buyer enter a contract for the sale of an item for $4,000.
• The item's wholesale cost to Seller is $3,500.
• In addition, Seller agrees to pay $50 to have the item installed at Buyer's home.
• Seller delivers the item to Buyer's home.
• Buyer doesn't pay for the item. (Buyer breaches.)
• Seller does not have the item installed in Buyer's home.
• It costs Seller $200 to get the item shipped back from the Buyer.

What are Seller's EXPECTANCY DAMAGES due to Buyer's breach?

Group of answer choices

$500

$650

$750

$350

• eonard works for a large company and his boss is Mary.
• Outside of work, Mary volunteers for a private School that is trying to raise money.
• One way the School is raising money is by selling cookies.
• Mary brings five cases of the cookies to work, hoping to sell them on behalf of the School.
• By the end of the day, Mary has sold only one case.
• Mary tells Leonard how impressed she will be if he agrees to buy the remaining four cases.
• Leonard cannot afford to buy all those cookies, but, feeling pressured, he agrees to buy them.
• Mary delivers the four cases of cookies to Leonard.
• The next day the School emails a bill to Leonard for the cookies.
• Leonard gets cold feet and refuses to pay.
• Leonard tries to return the cases of cookies to the School, but the School refuses to take them back.
• The School sues Leonard for breach of contract.

In that lawsuit, Leonard's best legal defense will be:

Group of answer choices

Failure of consideration

Undue influence

Fraud

Unconscionability