Read the instructions and respond appropriately.

Match each of the numbered definitions with the correct term in the following list.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A "meeting of the minds."

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Purposely not disclosing material facts to a contracting party.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A belief not in accord with the facts that may be concerned with the nature of the subject matter or the quality of the subject matter.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A contract regarded as shockingly unfair and unjust.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A mere expression of opinion.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

A contract characterized by unequal bargaining power of the parties.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Unintentional misstatement of a material fact.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

The power to control the actions of another that results from a special or confidential relationship.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Intentional misstatement of a material fact.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Domination of a person's will by force or by threat of force or injury.

1.contract of adhesion

2.duress

3.fraud

4.intentional concealment

5.misrepresentation

6.mistake

7.mutual agreement

8.puffing

9.unconscionable contract

10.undue influence

Question 8(2 points)

Directions:Study each of the following cases. Answer the questions that follow with Yes or No.

Undue Influence:Guss, a professor at a small college, offered to sell his five-year-old car to Kantrowitz, a student in one of his classes. The price Guss asked was wellabove market value. Kantrowitz accepted Guss's offer without even test-driving the car.

1. a.Is the contract between Guss and Kantrowitz voidable by either Guss or Kantrowitz?
2. b.Is the contract between Guss and Kantrowitz voidable only by Guss?
3. c.Is this a contract of adhesion?
4. d.Is this an example of misrepresentation?

Blank # 1

Blank # 2

Blank # 3

Blank # 4

Question 9(2 points)

Directions:Study each of the following cases. Answer the questions that follow with Yes or No.

Intentional Concealment:Gortino, while trying to sell his house to Gawlas, was asked if he had ever seen or suspected termites in the house. Gortino replied that he had not and that the house was sound. Several months after Gawlas had purchased the house, she learned from neighbors that Gortino had paid for soil treatment to eliminate termites.

1. a.Can the contract for sale be canceled because of fraud?
2. b.Was there a misstatement of a material fact?
3. c.Did Gawlas suffer a loss as a result of Gortino's actions?
4. d.Can Gawlas sue for damages?:

Blank # 1

Blank # 2

Blank # 3

Blank # 4

Question 10(2 points)

Directions:Study each of the following cases. Answer the questions that follow with Yes or No.

Voidable Contract:Gallagher Restaurant Supply was in the business of leasing equipment to small restaurants. Quezada, the operator of a small diner, leased a coffeemaker from Gallagher. It was only after the contract had been signed that Quezada learned that similar lease agreements with other restaurants were far less costly. Also, the agreement between the parties provided for an accelerated payment of the entire balance if Quezada failed to perform any condition of the lease, "no matter how trivial the condition may be." In addition, Gallagher would be entitled to take back the coffeemaker and collect a 20 percent penalty.

1. a.Is this an example of a contract signed under duress?
2. b.Is it likely that a court would enforce this contract?
3. c.Is this an example of a void contract?
4. d.Is this an example of a voidable contract?

Blank # 1

Blank # 2

Blank # 3

Blank # 4

Question 11(4 points)

Study each of the following cases carefully. Briefly state the principle of law and your decision.

Mutual Mistake:Brooking agreed to sell a tract of land to Dover Pool & Racquet Club Inc. on which Dover planned to build a swim and tennis club. Neither party to the contract knew that just before the contract was signed, the local zoning board of the town in which the land was located published a notice of public hearings on a proposal to amend the zoning in a way that would have prevented Dover from using the land as it had planned to do. Will this contract be enforced? [Dover Pool &Racquet Club, Inc. v. Brooking,322 N.E.2d 168 (Massachusetts)]

What is the Principle of Law?

What is the final decision?

Question 1 options:

Question 12(3 points)

Study each of the following cases carefully. Briefly state the principle of law and your decision.

Fraud:Power-Sports wished to obtain Harley-Davidson's permission to purchase a motorcycle dealership. Power-Sports provided written and oral statements about its business model, and based upon these statements, Harley-Davidson approved the purchase. Later Harley-Davidson learned that Power-Sports was operating in a manner inconsistent with its statements about its business model. Harley-Davidson sued for damages. Will Harley-Davidson be successful in its lawsuit against Power-Sports? [Harley-Davidson Motor Company v. Power-Sports, Inc.,319 F.3d 973 (Wisconsin)]

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?

Question 3(3 points)

Study each of the following cases carefully. Briefly state the principle of law and your decision.

Contract of Adhesion:Weaver, a high school dropout, leased a gas station from American Oil Company and signed a standard agreement prepared by the oil company's lawyers. The lease (contract) contained a clause in fine print that provided that the oil company would not be liable for any injury occurring on the premises regardless of fault. No one representing the oil company called Weaver's attention to the clause or explained it to him. In addition, the lease provided that Weaver would have to pay American Oil for any loss or damages, even if they resulted from the oil company's negligence. An employee of the oil company spilled gasoline on Weaver and his assistant, causing them to be burned and injured. The oil company brought an action seeking to be relieved of liability for the injury and to have Weaver held liable for any damages to the assistant. Will the contract provision for Weaver being held liable be enforced? [Weaver v. American Oil Co.,276 N.E.2d 144 (Indiana)]

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?