No rational needed $23.$ A candy store sent an order on December $1$ to a jellybean manufacturer for $500$ bags filled with red, heart$-$shaped jellybeans in anticipation of Valentine$’$s Day on February $14.$ The order stated that the jellybeans should not arrive earlier than January $15$ to ensure their freshness, but no later than February $1,$ to maximize sales before Valentine$’$s Day. The order also clearly stated in bold lettering that the candy store could cancel the order at any time before December $15.$ The jellybean manufacturer mailed an acceptance of the order, which was received by the candy store on December $3.$ On January $20,$ the candy store received the $500$ bags filled with red, heart$-$shaped jellybeans from the manufacturer in compliance with the order. However, the candy store refused to accept the jellybeans. Is the candy store in breach of contract?

Answers:

A$.$ Yes, because the candy store$’$s right to cancel the order was a condition subsequent.

B$.$ Yes, because an enforceable contract existed.

C$.$ No$,$ because the manufacturer$’$s shipment was only an offer.

D$.$ No$,$ because the candy store$’$s offer was an illusory promise.

Rationale: the candy store failed to cancel the order before December the $15$th$,$ the order transformed into a valid offer to purchase and pay for Jelly beans that met the specified requirements. In this case, the manufacturer accepted the store offer by delivering Jelly beans that complied with the orders terms within the specific time frame. Acres.

$24.$ A supervisor and an employee in neighboring cubicles had been chatting about sports. Ten minutes after their sports discussion had ended, the supervisor offered to sell the employee tickets to an upcoming baseball game for $$500,$ even though he saw the employee had placed earphones into his ears and begun working again. The employee, realizing that he missed something his supervisor said, nervously responded, $“$Sure$,$ boss.$”$ The day of the game, the supervisor told the employee that he would accept cash or check. When the employee indicated he had no idea what the supervisor was referencing, the supervisor angrily restated the terms of the discussion. Upon hearing the facts, the employee, who was short on funds, refused to pay the supervisor. Has a contract between the supervisor and employee been formed?

Answers:

A$.$ Yes, because the supervisor reasonably believed the employee accepted the offer.

B$.$ Yes, because the employee accepted the terms of the contract.

C$.$ No$,$ because a reasonable person would not believe the parties had entered a contract.

D$.$ No$,$ because the employee did not intend to accept the contract.

Rationale:

$25.$ The owner of an abandoned building in an urban section of town knew that many homeless people were staying in the building for shelter. Because he sympathized with their plight, he decided not to have them removed from the building and left the building in its current state, as he had no plans to remodel the building. The owner knew the building had dilapidated and uneven floors but never posted signs or informed those staying there of the uneven floors. A homeless man tripped on the uneven floor and sprained his ankle. A legal aid attorney filed suit against the owner on behalf of the injured man. The owner defended on the basis that he had no obligation to take action to provide a safe environment to the man. Under the Restatement, is the defense outlined by the owner likely to be successful?

Answers:

A$.$ Yes, because the floors did not involve a risk of serious harm or risk of death.

B$.$ Yes, because the owner did not have a duty to protect these trespassers.

C$.$ No$,$ because the owner had a duty to protect the man from unsafe conditions.

D$.$ No$,$ because the owner did not prohibit the people from entering the building.

Rationale:

$26.$ Immediately before leaving a party, a college student ate a cookie that, unknown to her, was laced with a hallucinogen. On the drive home, she lost control of her car because of the hallucinogen and struck another vehicle. The driver of the other vehicle sued the student under a negligence theory to recover for damages caused by the accident. At trial, the judge instructed the jury that, under the reasonable person standard, the student$’$s driving was to be judged considering the care that a sober person in her situation would have exercised. Has the judge correctly instructed the jury?

Answers:

A$.$ Yes, because a sober person is a reasonable person.

B$.$ Yes, because the student$’$s physical characteristics cannot be considered in determining whether she violated the reasonable person standard.

C$.$ No$,$ because the student unknowingly ingested the hallucinogen.

D$.$ No$,$ because the student was intoxicated at the time of the accident.