Multiple choice questions:

1- On October 15, in a contract document that both parties signed, Supplier agreed to deliver to Office on November 15 five new modular desks from inventory for a total price of $7,500. Under the contract, Office would pay Supplier on delivery. On November 1, the two parties orally agreed that Supplier would deliver only four new desks for a total of $6,000 and would deliver a used desk for an additional $500. On November 20, Supplier delivered the desks to Office, which refused to accept or pay for them on the ground that Office had contracted for and expected to receive five new desks.

If Office raises all appropriate defenses, will Supplier succeed in a suit against Office for breach of contract?

(A)

Yes, because neither the October 15 agreement nor the November 1 agreement was required to be in writing.

(B)

Yes, because the November 1 agreement operated as an accord and satisfaction of the contract terms.

(C)

No, because there was no consideration to support the August 1 agreement.

(D)

No, because the parol evidence rule will prevent proof of the August 1 agreement.

2- In a contract between Angela Farmer and Howard Cafe, one section read: "Farmer shall deliver in a chilled container 200 pounds of carrots suitable for use and display in Cafe's salad bar by March 31, 2020." Another section read: "This contract document constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all other understandings, representations, promises and agreements between the parties." When Farmer delivers the carrots to Store, Store rejects them and refuses to pay for them, saying that the carrots Farmer delivered are not adequate because Store needs baby carrots for its salad bar.

If Farmer sues Store for breach of contract, will the court accept evidence of an email message from Store to Farmer in which Store mentions that he needs baby carrots?

(A)

Yes, because the contract is ambiguous as to the type of carrots that were required to be delivered.

(B)

Yes, because the evidence would not contradict any of the provisions of the contract.

(C)

No, because the legal effect of the contract terms cannot be changed by evidence of other understandings.

(D)

No, because the parol evidence rule forbids a court from considering extrinsic evidence when a contract is fully integrated.

3- In an email message on August 1, Retailer asked Supplier, "Please tell me the price at which you will sell 500 of your Model 670-X drones units for delivery around August 10." After that, Retailer and Supplier exchanged the following email messages:

A. Supplier's August 2 message to Retailer: "Great news! We have 500 670-Xs at a 40% discount from our usual $400 price per unit. You can have them at that price if you pick them up at our warehouse by August 9."

B. Retailer's August 5 message to Supplier: "Love to have them, but I will need to have them delivered to my shop and pay in full 30 days after you send the invoice."

C. Supplier's August 6 message to Retailer: "You must pick them up at our warehouse and pay cash on delivery."

D. Retailer's August 9 message to Supplier: "OK, I guess I can get a driver out there to pick them up."

E. Retailer's August 10 message to Supplier, after Supplier had sold and delivered all 500 of the drones to another person that morning: "OK. I really need those drones and will pick them up on your terms by 4 p.m. today."

Retailer sues Supplier for breach of contract. Which of the following will be Supplier's best defense?

(A)

Supplier's August 2 message was just a price quotation, not an offer.

(B)

Retailer's August 5 message was not an acceptance because it varied the terms in Supplier's first message.

(C)

Retailer's August 5 message was not an acceptance because Supplier's offer was for a unilateral contract.

(D)

Supplier cannot communicate an offer using email.

4- After exchanging valid consideration, Gina orally promised William, who had been wanting to buy a new PlayStop 5 videogame console, "to pay the full purchase price of a PlayStop videogame system to any store or person from which you buy the system within the next three months." One month later, William bought a slightly used PlayStop 5 for $750 from Samuel, who had listed the PlayStop for sale on KarlzList, an online advertising site. At the time, Samuel did not know about Gina's promise to William, but in a message to Samuel asking when and where he could pick up the PlayStop, William mentioned that his good friend Gina would be paying for it.

Can Samuel enforce Gina's promise to William?

(A)

Yes, because Samuel agreed to sell the PlayStop in reliance on Gina's promise.

(B)

Yes, because Samuel is an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Gina and William.

(C)

No, because Gina's promise to William is unenforceable because the statute of frauds requires it to be in writing.

(D)

No, because the contract between Gina and William did not identify Samuel and Samuel was not aware of Gina's promise at the time of the sale of the PlayStop to William.

Questions 5 and 6 are both based on the following situation:

Andrew, a famous singer, executed a written contract with Carmine, a vocal coach who had developed a training method to improve a singer's breath control. In the contract, Carmine agreed to give vocal lessons to Andrew for two hours each week, and, if Andrew approved, to teach him her new breath control method. The contract did not mention assignment or delegation. Before beginning the lessons, Carmine accepted a full-time appointment as a music professor in another country and signed an agreement with David, under which Carmine agreed to teach David her breath control method and delegated to David her duties under her contract with Andrew. David had previously served as a vocal coach to Luciano Parvenue, a top international opera star, who had given David excellent reviews, and who served previously as a judge on a television talent show. David assured Andrew that Andrew was in good hands and would see big improvements in his singing ability.

5- Is Andrew obligated to allow David to perform his contract with Carmine?

(A)

Yes, because Andrew's contract with Carmine did not prohibit assignment or delegation.

(B)

Yes, because David provided Andrew with adequate assurances of David's ability to provide vocal lessons.

(C)

No, because Carmine's duties were of a personal nature, involving her reputation skill and services.

(D)

No, because Carmine's delegation to David of her duties under her contract with Andrew operated as a novation.

6- If Andrew allows David to provide him with vocal lessons and teach him Carmine's breath control method, but David fails without legal excuse to provide the lessons as agreed, who can Andrew sue and win a claim for breach of contract against?

(A)

Carmine only, because Carmine's agreement with David did not discharge her duty to Andrew, and David made no express promise to Andrew.

(B)

David only, because Carmine discharged her duty to Andrew when Carmine obtained a skilled vocal coach (David) to perform her contract with Andrew.

(C)

David only, because Andrew was an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract between Carmine and David, and Carmine's duty to Andrew was discharged when Andrew permitted David to provide vocal lessons and teach him Carmine's breath control method.

(D)

Either Carmine or David, because Carmine's contract with David did not discharge her duty to Andrew; or because Andrew was an intended beneficiary of Carmine's contract with David.

Questions 7 and 8 are based on the following situation:

Levon, who owned a large independent bookstore, signed a contract on March 1 with Melissa, a book distributor, in which he agreed to buy over a period of six months 750 copies of the bestselling autobiography My Life So Far, by 18-year-old climate activist Amy Torenberg, who had made major appearances on national television morning shows and was just beginning a book signing tour when Levon signed his contract with Melissa. In discussions with Melissa leading up to the contract execution, Levon mentioned how excited he was that Amy had agreed to sign her book in his store in about three months. The contract document specified that the largest of the book shipments, 250 copies, must arrive by May 26, while other shipments of 100 copies each would be delivered on the first of every other month except June. The first two deliveries from Melissa, on April 1 and May 1, occurred as promised and Levon was very pleased with the sales results. The third shipment, however, arrived on May 26 with only 200 copies and 120 of those had severe water damage because Melissa's shipper had left them overnight in a truck that had leaked. Levon complained to Melissa, but Melissa refused to take the damaged books back or send replacements. Although Levon was able to sell all of the 80 undamaged books from the shipment plus 30 more left over from previous shipments on the day of Amy's book signing appearance, many of Levon's customers left unhappy, without copies of the book that they wanted to have Amy sign.

7- If Levon sues Melissa, which of the following claims gives Levon his best chance of recovering damages from Melissa?

(A)

A claim for breach of contract for failing to deliver the number of books the contract required.

(B)

A claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, because Levon could not sell the damaged books.

(C)

A claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because of Amy had agreed to sign her book at Levon's store.

(D)

A claim for fraud because Melissa led Levon to believe that she would deliver the books as promised.

8- Assume instead that Melissa delivered 250 undamaged copies of Amy's book on June 1st, but Amy's book signing occurred on May 29, two days previously. As before, Levon sold out of his stock of Amy's book, but many of his customers left disappointed.

If Levon sues Melissa for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, he should:

(A)

Win, because Melissa knew that Levon had planned to have Amy sign her book at his store.

(B)

Lose, because Levon's having books available for the book signing was not a "particular purpose" that the implied warranty was designed to address.

(C)

Win, because Levon's specification of a larger than ordinary shipment on a particular date was evidence that he needed the books for a particular purpose.

(D)

Lose, because the parol evidence rule bars Levon's oral statement from being admitted during the trial.

9- Grocer, who owned a grocery store, telephoned Farmer and offered to buy for $0.25 per pound a minimum of 1,500 and a maximum of 2,000 pounds of table grapes, to be delivered in 10 days. Farmer orally accepted this offer, then later that day sent an email message to Grocer that stated: "This message is a confirmation of our agreement today by telephone to sell you 1,500 pounds of table grapes for delivery in 10 days, signed Farmer." Nine days later, Farmer delivered to Grocer 2,000 pounds of table grapes, all of which Grocer rejected because in the meantime Grocer had found a better price-per-pound from another vendor. Because there was an oversupply in the market for table grapes, Farmer could obtain a price of only $0.10 per pound and therefore refused to resell the table grapes to another willing buyer for that price.

In a suit by Farmer against Grocer, which of the following will a court likely decide?

(A)

Farmer can enforce a contract for 2,000 pounds of grapes and obtain $500 in damages, because Grocer ordered, and Farmer delivered, that quantity.

(B)

Farmer can enforce a contract for 1,500 pounds of grapes and obtain $375 in damages, because Farmer's email confirmation stated that quantity term.

(C)

Farmer does not have an enforceable contract with Grocer, because Grocer never signed anything in writing.

(D)

Farmer can enforce a contract for 1,500 pounds of grapes but obtain only $225 in damages because Farmer was required to mitigate her damages by selling the grapes to a willing buyer.

10- Kara's friend Jordan had recently started an in-home care business. One day Jordan asked if Kara's grandmother, who was 87 years old and was showing signs of beginning to lose her memory, needed care. When Kara said she thought she might need some help soon, but that she and her sisters could probably take care of her, Jordan said, "Kara, you know I've just started this business - how about helping me out and signing your grandmother up as one of my clients?" Kara asked Jordan about her training and Jordan said she had taken the state-required licensing exam. Kara said she would think about it, but she didn't consider the idea seriously until one day her grandmother wandered away from home and couldn't find her way back. Still, she didn't contact Jordan because she had heard from friends of friends that Jordan had acted in a way toward some of her clients that seemed abusive. Then, after getting into an accident in a car she had borrowed from Kara, Jordan told Kara she was sorry, but she couldn't pay Kara for repairs to the car Kara needed to get to work unless Kara convinced her grandmother to hire her for in-home care. Kara finally agreed, signing a six-month contract for Jordan to provide care to her grandmother. But three weeks later, after her grandmother complained about how Jordan treated her, Kara contacted the state licensing authority and learned that Jordan did not have a license. Kara then told Jordan that she couldn't come to the house to care for her grandmother and that she would refuse to pay Jordan for the remainder of the contract term.

If Jordan sues Kara for breach of contract, Kara's best defense is:

(A)

Jordan's refusal to pay for the damage to Kara's car operated as duress in convincing Kara to sign the contract with Jordan.

(B)

Jordan's stating that she had license was a misrepresentation that entitles her to rescind the contract.

(C)

Jordan charged too much for the poor service she provided.

(D)

Kara's belief that Jordan was qualified to provide care was a mistake of fact that allows her to void the contract.

11- Edward got his engineering degree fromOregon State University and accepted an offerof employment from TopSide Engineering onemonth later. The employment contract TopSidepresented to Edward had this provision:"Edward Employee agrees to use his educationand training to perform at a professionalstandard and for the rate of $50 per hour allengineering work that TopSide Engineeringassigns to Edward Employee." Edward,delighted to be working in his first professionaljob and already dreaming about a brilliantengineering career, signed the contract withoutanother thought and happily started workingon his first project. TopSide paid Edward twiceper month for the first three months of the job,at which point the project Edward was workingon concluded. Edward's supervisor reviewedthe project with him the next day and said thathis performance wasn't bad for a new graduate,but for later projects he would need to improvea lot. For the next two weeks, TopSide did notassign him any other work and at the end ofthat period Edward did not receive anotherpaycheck. Concerned, Edward contacted hissupervisor and asked what had happened. Hissupervisor said he should hang on; he wouldlook into the matter and that he should expectanother assignment shortly. When anotherthree weeks passed without any assignmentsand no other paychecks, Edward got annoyedand contacted an attorney.

If Edward sues TopSide for breaching hisemployment contract, Edward:

(A)

Will win, because he has not been paid for five weeks and Top Side owes him a paycheck.

(B)

Will lose, because his work was not at the professional standard Top Side expected.

(C)

Will win, because Edward was unable to accept other work while employed by Top Side.

(D)

Will lose, because TopSide'sagreement to employ him wasan illusory promise.

12- Jerry worked as a brand representative forMonstrosity PowerAde, an energy drink targetedtoward young people who wanted to "live life on theedge." While doing promotion for Monstrosity at alocal high school in February, Jerry met Brittany, amember of the school's most popular and most visiblestudent group, which started trends that otherstudents soon followed. Thinking of what Brittanycould do for sales of Monstrosity at the high school,Jerry offered to pay Brittany $250 a month and supplyher with all of the Monstrosity PowerAde she wantedin return for talking about how great the drink was topeople she met and on her social media accounts. IfJerry saw a 50 percent increase in sales of the drink,he told Brittany, he would match the $250 paymentswith $250 contributions to a scholarship fund forcollege. Brittany was unsure at first since she wasfocused on planning her "blowout" 18th birthdayparty this coming May, but after Jerry told her she'dbe a perfect representative, she agreed. Jerry quicklywrote down the terms of the deal on a piece of scrappaper from Brittany's notebook and had her sign it.

Everything went well for the first four months andJerry was excited about the 75 percent increase insales he saw within days after Brittany started talkingabout the drink. But once June arrived, Brittany lostinterest in promoting Monstrosity and started talkingabout Monstrosity's competitor, EvilAde. Jerrycontinued to pay Brittany and contribute to thescholarship fund for the next couple of months beforestopping and filing suit against her for breach ofcontract. In a lawsuit against Brittany, Jerry will:

(A)

Win, because Brittany breachedthe contract when she beganworking for EvilAde.

(B)

Lose, because Brittany was aminor when she signed thecontract and can disaffirm itwithout liability.

(C)

Win, because Brittany'scontinued performance aftershe turned 18 was a ratificationof the contract.

(D)

Lose, but can recover asrestitution the amounts he paidinto the scholarship fund andany money Brittany has notspent from Jerry's payments.