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

Adequacy of Consideration:Duggan inherited some nondescript furniture, including an old desk that he sold to Andersen for $50. A short time later he learned that the desk was an antique worth about $500. Duggan brought suit to recover $450, the difference between the sale price and what the desk was really worth.

1. a.Will Duggan succeed in this suit?
2. b.Is the contract between Duggan and Andersen unconscionable?
3. c.Is the contract void because of the inadequacy of consideration?

Blank # 1

Blank # 2

Blank # 3

Question 2(2 points)

Forbearance:Helfrich, in a barroom brawl, broke Grady's arm. Grady brought suit against Helfrich for damages. Before the case came to trial, Helfrich offered to give Grady a $500 note, payable in 30 days, as full settlement for all claims Grady had against Helfrich. Grady accepted this offer. When the note came due, Helfrich refused to pay, claiming that there was no exchange of benefits and no consideration.

1. a.Is Helfrich correct in his claim that consideration was lacking?
2. b.Could Grady's action in dropping the suit be regarded as consideration?
3. c.Is forbearance a form of consideration?

Blank # 1

Blank # 2

Blank # 3

Question 3(2 points)

Acceptable Consideration:Alfieri, a hunting enthusiast, frequently shot birds in his own and his neighbor's backyard in violation of a city ordinance that prohibited guns being discharged within the city limits. The neighbor offered to pay Alfieri $100 if he would refrain from shooting birds for one year. At the end of the year, the neighbor refused to pay, claiming that there was no consideration.

1. a.Will Alfieri succeed in collecting the $100?
2. b.Is there consideration present in this agreement?
3. c.Is a barren promise acceptable consideration?

Blank # 1

Blank # 2

Blank # 3

Question 4(4 points)

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

Unconscionable Contract:Jackson, a widow who was desperate for money, sold land to her brother, Seymour, for $275. Later Seymour found valuable timber on the land and sold some of it for $2,353. When Jackson realized that the property was worth much more than she had originally thought, she offered to return the sales price with interest. Seymour refused. Jackson sued, claiming fraudthat her brother, upon whom she relied for the management of her affairs, had misrepresented the value of the land. The initial court decision favored Seymour, and the decision was appealed. Is it likely that the court will invalidate the sale of the property? [Jackson v. Seymour, 71 S.E.2d 181 (Virginia)]

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?

Question 5(4 points)

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

Specificity of Consideration:Forrer was an employee of Sears for many years. He eventually left because of health problems and began operating a farm. Sears persuaded Forrer to return to work on a part-time basis, and about one month later promised permanent employment if Forrer gave up the farm and returned to work full-time. Forrer did so, but four months later he was discharged without cause. Forrer sued for damages, lost the case in the trial court, and appealed. Will Forrer be successful in his complaint against Sears? What consideration was promised by Forrer and Sears? [Forrer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,153 N.W.2d 587 (Wisconsin)]Page 164

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?

Question 6(4 points)

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

Consideration:The Spring Well Drilling Company entered into a contract with Towne Construction Company to drill a well to supply water to a particular piece of property where Towne was building a house. Spring Well offered no guarantee that water would, in fact, be produced. The drilling proceeded, but no water flowed. Towne refused to pay on the grounds that there was a failure of consideration. Spring Well sued to collect the agreed fee. Will Spring Well succeed in the suit?

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?

Question 7(3 points)

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

Validity of Consideration:Maitland, a fund-raiser for Arbor College, solicited contributions for the college's building program. Hamill Manufacturing pledged a contribution to the program. When the company did not pay, Maitland sued. Hamill claimed there was no consideration. Will Maitland be successful in the suit?

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?

Question 7(10 points)

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?