One 30 minute attempt.

Please answer the following based on the following fact pattern:

Bell and Burke are discussing a possible purchase of Bell's summer home, located in Lavellette, NJ, at a local restaurant in South Orange.

Burke is a rather loud and boisterous person, who often brags that he has "more than enough money to purchase a summer house." Bell does not believe Burke has the necessary funds to purchase the property and is annoyed by Burke's constant bragging. Nevertheless, she agrees to the sale in an attempt to prove Burke's lack of integrity and seriousness.

Bell writes out the following on the reverse side of a restaurant place mat:

"I hereby agree to sell the 'Old Lavalette-Lacy Mansion' to Burke for $2,000,000, as long as he returns within three days with all cash."

Bell signs the statement. Burke then takes it from her and leaves the restaurant.

The next day, to Bell's great surprise, Burke shows up at her house with a suitcase full of $100 bills-- amounting to $2 million dollars. Bell now panics and tells Burke to "Get lost... I was not serious about this. I never thought you could ever come up with cash like that." [Bell didn't know Burke has miraculously hit the NJ lottery the night before.] "Besides, we were both quite drunk and I really was only kidding. I never intended to sell my home to you or anyone else."

Burke is determined to force Bell to "turn over" the property.

Note: this is a timed quiz. You may check the remaining time you have at any point while taking the quiz by pressing the keyboard combination SHIFT, ALT, and T... Again: SHIFT, ALT, and T...

Flag question: Question 1

Question 1 1 pts

In determining whether Bell exhibited the necessary intent to enter into a contract, a court or jury should:

Group of answer choices

Prevent any analysis not within the time period of the statute of limitations

Apply a subjective analysis and determine what was in Bell's mind

Only consider the issue if the promise was made in writing

Apply an objective or "reasonable person" analysis

Flag question: Question 2

Question 2 1 pts

In determining whether the writing on the placemat which Burke now is trying to enforce is sufficient, the court should:

Group of answer choices

Reject the writing because it was not formal and not "under seal."

Determine if the writing was "clear, definite and explicit, and left nothing to negotiate."

Apply the rule that the writing is not an offer, but rather was an invitation to negotiate which Bell can reject.

Refuse to accept the writing unless it was notarized.

Flag question: Question 3

Question 3 1 pts

In this case, the court could enforce the purported agreement between the parties because:

Group of answer choices

The description of the property in question was not satisfactory, even though the Statute of Frauds in New Jersey permits such a historical description of property

The subject matter of the purported contract is not required to be in writing

There was no writing between the parties

the agreement complied with the Statute of Frauds

Flag question: Question 4

Question 4 1 pts

In determining whether a party has the required "capacity" or understanding to enter into a contract:

Group of answer choices

A court should require a statement from the parties relating to their parties.

As part of a deposition, a court must require a party to undertake a medical examination in which their capacity would be determined.

A court must determine if a party "understood the nature of the transaction."

A court should not ask as to the issue of capacity if a party signed a contract.

Flag question: Question 5

Question 5 1 pts

A possible remedy in this case if the court determined that the writing constituted a valid offer by Bell and a valid acceptance by Burke is:

Group of answer choices

"Quantum meruit"

Cover

Seizure of the property by a sheriff

Specific performance