Question 5 (1 point)

Phil, an Ontario resident, ordered a customized motorbike on February 1^st with delivery on June 1^st. On his 18^th birthday, on May 1^st, Phil decided that he wanted a windsurfer instead, so he called the motorbike company the next morning and cancelled the contract. The payments would have been made on a 24-month basis.

Question 5 options:

	Phil cannot be held to the contract since he repudiated it within a reasonable time after turning 18.
	Phil cannot be held to this contract since he would have had to ratify it when he turned 18, and he did not.
	Since Phil has caused the motorbike company to incur the extra expense of removing the customization from the bike, he can be required to pay for that, but not to accept delivery and pay for the bike since he repudiated the contract within a reasonable time after he turned 18.
	Phil can be held to the contract since he failed to repudiate it in writing within a reasonable time after he became 18.
	Phil cannot be held to this contract since he would have had to ratify it in writing when he turned 18 and he did not.

Question 6 (1 point)

On leave from the navy, Bart and his buddies ventured into town for a night of partying. After a good many drinks a friend suggested they all get tattoos. When Bart's turn came he, in his inebriated state, chose a large tattoo to cover his entire forearm. When they were done the sailors returned to their ship. When Bart woke the next morning his tattoo was there, large as life, on his arm. Bart, after a discussion with a friend decided to contact his lawyer to see what he could do about this tattoo.

Question 6 options:

	A. Bart, realizing his mistake on his return to sobriety, can sue for damages.
	B. Bart does not have a case against the tattoo parlour because alcohol is not a ground for which a person can repudiate a contract.
	C. Bart may have a case against the tattoo parlour since it either knew or ought to have known that he was drunk and should not have performed the service.
	D. Bart does not have a case because there is no provision for drunkenness in contract law.
	E. A and C.

Question 7 (1 point)

Ruth sold her craft shop to Mary. The contract of sale had a clause which said that Ruth could not open a similar store for two years within a five-kilometre radius. This kind of clause is called

Question 7 options:

	a restrictive covenant.
	an employment contract.
	a protection of the freedom to compete clause.
	public policy clause.
	None of these.

Question 8 (1 point)

Steve orally agrees, at a family reunion picnic, to buy Bob's farm for $250,000, and all the terms of the agreement are settled. Bob agrees to let Steve come onto the property before the closing date so that Steve can renovate the farmhouse kitchen and build a new barn before he takes over formally. By the time Bob tells Steve that he has changed his mind and that he will not be completing the transaction on the closing date, Steve has spent $40,000 on the property.

Question 8 options:

	Under the Statute of Frauds, since their agreement was not evidenced in writing, Steve cannot enforce it in court, and cannot recover the $40,000.
	Under the doctrine of part performance, Steve can request that the court order specific performance of the contract.
	Steve can ask a court to order specific performance of the contract because he has spent a lot of money on the property.
	Steve can use the doctrine of promissory estoppel to force Bob to complete the transaction and give him the farm in exchange for $250,000.
	Because of the Statute of Frauds, Steve cannot get the farm, but he can sue Bob for the tort of deceit and recover the $40,000.