Pete Poblano, Levi Jackson and Sofia Rioja were three good friends who had graduated from Cornell in 2018 and returned to Ithaca in 2021 to start their own businesses. All had moved to warmer locations after college, but grew tired of constant sunshine and warm weather. They yearned for a place with long gray winters where weeks could go by without a break of sun and where the golf courses were used for cross-country skiing. After months of communicating by e-mail about the idea of returning to Ithaca, the three finally decided to return to the home of their alma matter and join the local business community. Upon arrival, they began preparing for their respective business pursuits. Pete Poblano, who had worked as a cook at a restaurant in Cancun, Mexico for the past seven years, decided to open a Mexican restaurant. Pete had majored in philosophy and found the answers to many of life's big questions in the combinations of ingredients he wrapped in flour tortillas. He 0thought by owning his own Mexican restaurant, he could prove that his father was wrong when he said that a philosophy degree had no practical business applications. Levi Jackson, a Hotel School major whose concentration was hospitality and labor law decided to open a piercing and tattoo parlor in Collegetown. He predicted that 8 out of every 10 Cornell students would get at least one piecing or tattoo during their 4 years at Cornell, and thus he would be rich. He knew very little about the fine art of piercing and tattooing, but figured he could hire the necessary help. Sofia Rioja had graduated with a degree in Engineering, but loved her Wines class so much at Cornell, that she had moved to Grenada, Spain after graduation to work at a winery. She decided to open a specialty wine store in Ithaca specializing in Spanish and Italian wines. She also wanted to buy land in the Finger Lakes to start growing Spanish varietal grapes to produce her own wine locally. Pete wasted no time finding a location for his Mexican Restaurant. He found what he thought was the ideal spot, and saw a sign hanging in the window that said "Recently reduced - this space can be yours for as little as $3,000 per month in rent. Be the first to call!! (607) 273-0766." Pete immediately took out his cell phone and called the number. He reached the voicemail of the landlord Jason Fang, and Pete stated "My name is Pete Poblano, my phone number is (607) 592-4276, and I accept your offer to lease your space on College Avenue for $3,000 per month." He received a call back from Fang a few minutes later and they agreed to meet at Fang's office to discuss a lease. Fang started the conversation by telling Pete that the lease would be a triple net lease. When Pete asked him what that meant, Fang explained that, while the rent was $3,000 per month, Pete (as the tenant) would be responsible for real estate taxes, building insurance and maintenance, which would run approximately $1,800 per month. Pete was furious and accused Fang of a bait and switch. Pete stormed out and said "See you in court." Pete immediately filed a complaint in court and demanded that Fang rent him the space for $3,000 per month with no other charges.

D Question 1 2.5 pts Did the sign hanging in the window constitute a valid offer? O No, it was merely an invitation to bargain Yes, it was a general offer to the public that could be accepted by anyone willing to pay $3,000 per month for the space. O Yes, it was objectively clear and definite in all respects. O No, it was not signed by the landlordD Question 2 2.5 pts If the court rules that the sign was a valid offer, what is Fang's best argument to prevent a contract from being enforced? O A contract for real estate must be in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. 0 The contract lacks consideration because Fang would not suffer any detriment. 0 Pete was mistaken about the additional expenses in a triple net lease, and therefore the contract is unenforceable. O Pete's ignorance of the meaning of \"triple net\" showed he was unsophisticated and therefore the contract was unconscionable. D Question 3 2.5 pts If the court finds that the contract is valid, what is Fang's best argument that Pete is not entitled to specific performance for that particular space? O While most real estate is unique, the space was nearly identical in square footage, layout and location as two other vacant spaces on the same block. O Commercial leases are not subject to specific performance. O Fang had another tenant willing to pay him $3,000 per month plus the additional expenses for taxes, building insurance and maintenance. O Specific performance is an equitable remedy, and Pete is dishonest

Question

Pete Poblano, Levi Jackson and Sofia Rioja were three good friends who had graduated from Cornell in 2018 and returned to Ithaca in 2021 to start their own businesses. All had moved to warmer locations after college, but grew tired of constant sunshine and warm weather. They yearned for a place with long gray winters where weeks could go by without a break of sun and where the golf courses were used for cross-country skiing. After months of communicating by e-mail about the idea of returning to Ithaca, the three finally decided to return to the home of their alma matter and join the local business community. Upon arrival, they began preparing for their respective business pursuits. Pete Poblano, who had worked as a cook at a restaurant in Cancun, Mexico for the past seven years, decided to open a Mexican restaurant. Pete had majored in philosophy and found the answers to many of life's big questions in the combinations of ingredients he wrapped in flour tortillas. He 0thought by owning his own Mexican restaurant, he could prove that his father was wrong when he said that a philosophy degree had no practical business applications. Levi Jackson, a Hotel School major whose concentration was hospitality and labor law decided to open a piercing and tattoo parlor in Collegetown. He predicted that 8 out of every 10 Cornell students would get at least one piecing or tattoo during their 4 years at Cornell, and thus he would be rich. He knew very little about the fine art of piercing and tattooing, but figured he could hire the necessary help. Sofia Rioja had graduated with a degree in Engineering, but loved her Wines class so much at Cornell, that she had moved to Grenada, Spain after graduation to work at a winery. She decided to open a specialty wine store in Ithaca specializing in Spanish and Italian wines. She also wanted to buy land in the Finger Lakes to start growing Spanish varietal grapes to produce her own wine locally. Pete wasted no time finding a location for his Mexican Restaurant. He found what he thought was the ideal spot, and saw a sign hanging in the window that said "Recently reduced - this space can be yours for as little as $3,000 per month in rent. Be the first to call!! (607) 273-0766." Pete immediately took out his cell phone and called the number. He reached the voicemail of the landlord Jason Fang, and Pete stated "My name is Pete Poblano, my phone number is (607) 592-4276, and I accept your offer to lease your space on College Avenue for $3,000 per month." He received a call back from Fang a few minutes later and they agreed to meet at Fang's office to discuss a lease. Fang started the conversation by telling Pete that the lease would be a triple net lease. When Pete asked him what that meant, Fang explained that, while the rent was $3,000 per month, Pete (as the tenant) would be responsible for real estate taxes, building insurance and maintenance, which would run approximately $1,800 per month. Pete was furious and accused Fang of a bait and switch. Pete stormed out and said "See you in court." Pete immediately filed a complaint in court and demanded that Fang rent him the space for $3,000 per month with no other charges.

D Question 1 2.5 pts Did the sign hanging in the window constitute a valid offer? O No, it was merely an invitation to bargain Yes, it was a general offer to the public that could be accepted by anyone willing to pay $3,000 per month for the space. O Yes, it was objectively clear and definite in all respects. O No, it was not signed by the landlordD Question 2 2.5 pts If the court rules that the sign was a valid offer, what is Fang's best argument to prevent a contract from being enforced? O A contract for real estate must be in writing and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. 0 The contract lacks consideration because Fang would not suffer any detriment. 0 Pete was mistaken about the additional expenses in a triple net lease, and therefore the contract is unenforceable. O Pete's ignorance of the meaning of \"triple net\" showed he was unsophisticated and therefore the contract was unconscionable. D Question 3 2.5 pts If the court finds that the contract is valid, what is Fang's best argument that Pete is not entitled to specific performance for that particular space? O While most real estate is unique, the space was nearly identical in square footage, layout and location as two other vacant spaces on the same block. O Commercial leases are not subject to specific performance. O Fang had another tenant willing to pay him $3,000 per month plus the additional expenses for taxes, building insurance and maintenance. O Specific performance is an equitable remedy, and Pete is dishonest