Multiple choice Question

1, In July of last summer LeBron, a grape grower, contracted with Walter's Winery to deliver '500 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes grown on my ranch Grapeacre in Grape County.' The price was to be $1,000 per ton and delivery was to be on or before September 15. In August of the same year, LeBron entered into an identical contract with Vinnie's Vintner Co. to sell 300 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes. LeBron completed his harvest by September 10 and had 800 tons of premium quality grapes. On September 11, an unexpected rain ruined 400 tons, and LeBron notified Walter and Vinnie on that day that he would only be able to deliver 250 tons to Walter and 150 tons to Vinnie. On September 14, Vinnie purchased an additional 150 tons of premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes from Godfrey, one of several other available sources for premium quality pinot chardonnay grapes. These grapes along with the 150 tons from LeBron gave Vinnie the 300 tons he needed. On September 15, what is Walter's Winery's legal position with regard to LeBron's failure to deliver the 500 tons of grapes required by his contract?

A. If Walter has given LeBron a written notice of termination, Walter will have the right to refuse to accept the 250 tons of grapes but will have no cause of action for damages against LeBron.

B. Even if Walter has given LeBron a written notice of termination, Walter must accept the 250 tons of grapes and will have no cause of action for damages against LeBron.

C. Since Vinnie's purchase establishes that it is possible for LeBron to perform by obtaining additional grapes from other available sources, Walter may accept the 250 tons from LeBron and recover damages for LeBron's failure to deliver the balance of the amount specified by the contract.

D. Since LeBron's contract with Walter was entered into before his contract with Vinnie, LeBron is bound to deliver the entirety of his grape crop to Walter.

ANSWER:

2, Hermione and her friend Ginny were going away to college and had quite a few personal belongings to transport. Hermione's father offered to drive them in his van, but when the van was loaded they discovered there was only room for two people, so Hermione asked her boyfriend Harry to drive her in his car while Hermione's father and Ginny rode in the van. About halfway to the college, while the van and Harry's car were driving down the freeway, the van in front, the van suddenly swerved out of control and ran off the highway, ending up on its side in the center divider. When Harry stopped his car and Hermione ran to the van, she discovered to her horror that her father was dead. Ginny appeared to be injured, but not severely. Because her father previously had heart trouble, Hermione assumed that he had had a heart attack while driving, although a later investigation would reveal that the accident was caused solely by a defect in the steering mechanism of the van. Filled with remorse, Hermione told Ginny, 'I'm so sorry about this. I'll make good any losses you suffer because of this accident.' Later, when Hermione learned that Ginny was going to seek treatment from Dr. Dumbledore, she wrote the doctor a letter stating that she would be responsible for all of Ginny's medical expenses; Dr. Dumbledore received the letter the next day. Assume for purposes of this question only that several months after the accident, but within the applicable statute of limitations, Ginny discovered that she had suffered an injury to her spinal column that would prevent her from ever playing basketball again. Ginny had been a scholarship athlete in basketball at the college and was considered to be a certain high draft selection for the newly formed women's professional basketball league when she graduated. She brought an action against Hermione for several million dollars in damages. Which of the following is the best defense Hermione could assert against Ginny's claim?

A. There was no consideration supporting her promise to Ginny to make good any losses.

B. She did not intend to offer to pay Ginny for the loss of her professional career when she said she would make good any losses.

C. She was in error when she assumed that her father's heart attack was the cause of the accident.

D. She did not know that Ginny would not be able to play basketball when she offered to make good any losses.

ANSWER:

3, On January 2, Crosby borrowed $1,000 from his friend Malkin, agreeing in writing to repay the loan within a year. In September, it became clear to Crosby that he would have difficulty meeting the year deadline, and so Crosby approached Ovechkin with the following proposition: Crosby would perform 200 hours of work for Ovechkin during the next six months at the special rate of $5 per hour, if Ovechkin would agree to pay $1,000 for the entire 200 hours to Malkin on the following January 1. Ovechkin agreed. By January 1, Crosby had only worked five hours for Ovechkin, and Ovechkin stated to Crosby that he would not pay Malkin because Crosby had not worked enough. Crosby responded, 'That's okay, just hold on to the money until I get 200 hours in, then pay Malkin.' Ovechkin agreed. Assume for purposes of this question that after the agreement between Crosby and Ovechkin was entered into in September, Crosby informed Malkin of the arrangement. Malkin's response was, 'I don't care who pays me but if I don't get my money by January 2, I'll sue.' The January 1 modification between Crosby and Ovechkin occurs, and after learning of the modification, Malkin sues Ovechkin for $1,000. What is the probable result of this action?

A. Judgment for Malkin, because he was informed of the original agreement and did not participate in the modification.

B. Judgment for Malkin, because he assented to the original agreement.

C. Judgment for Ovechkin, because the original agreement was modified before Malkin's rights became vested.

D. Judgment for Ovechkin, because his contract was with Crosby, not Malkin.

ANSWER:

4, On February 1, Federer Rubber Co. telephoned Nadal Tire Shop and offered to sell to Nadal 500 series 4 Federer tires for $20,000. Nadal accepted immediately. On February 3, Nadal sent Federer a letter confirming the deal and stating that Nadal was counting on a 20% discount due to the size of the purchase. On February 20, Federer telephoned Nadal and stated that it could not afford to sell the 500 series 4 tires for less than 30000. If Nadal brings suit against Federer and Federer asserts the Statute of Frauds as a defense, will Nadal prevail?

A. Yes, but only if its February 3 letter contained the quantity term.

B. Yes, regardless of whether its February 3 letter contained the quantity term because the letter merely confirms a prior deal for 500 series 4 tires.

C. No, because Nadal's February 3 letter varied the terms of Federer's offer.

D. No, because Federer is the party to be charged and has signed nothing.

ANSWER: