Multiple choice question on commercial law (UCC)

Question #16 (worth 1 point)

On November 30, a restaurant entered into a written contract with Polar to supply the restaurant all of its water needs for the next calendar year. The contract contained a provision wherein the restaurant promised to purchase "a minimum of 1,000 bottles per month at $1.00 per bottle." Both sides performed fully under the contract for the first four months. On April 1, the president of Polar telephoned the manager of the restaurant and told him that, because of an increase in their cost, Polar would be forced to raise prices by 20%. The manager responded that he understood and agreed to the price increase. Polar then shipped 1,000 bottles along with a bill for $1,200.00. The restaurant sent the check for $1,000.00 and refused to pay more. Is the restaurant obligated to pay the additional $200.00?

(A) Yes, because the April 1 modification was enforceable even though it was not supported by new consideration.

(B) Yes, because Polar detrimentally relied on the modification by making the April shipment to the restaurant.

(C) No, because there was no consideration to support the modification.

(D) No, because the modifying contract was not in writing, it was, therefore, unenforceable under the UCC.

Question #17 (worth 1 point)

In July, Buyer, a local market owner, enters into a valid contract with seller, a maple syrup farmer, whereby seller is to sell his entire crop of syrup to buyer for $15,000. There are no special characteristics about the seller's product differentiating it.

Later, a syrup manufacturer approached seller and offered him $16,500 for his entire crop to meet the manufacturer's increased demands around Labor Day. Although he already promised the crop to Buyer, seller found the deal too good to pass up and accepted the manufacturer's offer. Buyer sued for specific performance,

while the maple syrup was still in the seller's possession. Buyer was able to schedule an expedited hearing on his specific performance request and the matter was promptly heard. Page 11 of 18 At the hearing seeking specific performance, the Buyer should:

(A) Prevail, because specific performance is generally available under UCC.

(B) Prevail, because future contracts are subject to specific performance under the UCC.

(C) Lose, because buyer can be adequately compensated by cover or market differential damages.

(D) Lose, because specific performance is not available in anticipatory repudiation cases