Tenant purchased a business from a prior tenant, and with the Landlord's consent assumed the existing lease that had with 5 years left plus an option to renew for another 20 years by giving notice at least 6 months prior to the end of the lease. The business was a success, and Tenant made expensive physical improvements to the premises. About 2 months before the end of the lease, Tenant received an email from Landlord, asking about Tenant's plans to vacate at the end of the lease. Tenant sent a notice to Landlord exercising the option to renew the lease for another 20 years, and then sued for specific performance. What is the most likely outcome of Tenant's lawsuit?

Question 1 options:

a) Since the option was express and tenant did not strictly perform and missed the option notice date, tenant's application was denied.

b) Since landlord advised tenant it had missed the option notice date, landlord did not waive any rights under the contract and tenant's application was denied.

c) Since tenant responded as soon as landlord advised tenant that tenant did not comply with the option notice requirement, it was only fair that tenant's application was granted.

d) Since tenant was not willfully negligent, the delay was slight and tenant would suffer severe hardship, tenant's application was granted.

Question 2 (0.5 points)

Plaintiff borrowed $100,000 from Defendant, payable in monthly installments over 10 years. For the first three years, Plaintiff made all of his payments on time. After that Plaintiff rarely made a payment on time, but the Defendant made no protest. After two years of accepting late payments, Defendant rejected a late

payment and declared the contract terminated pursuant to provisions in the contract making time of each payment of the essence. There was a clause in the contract that stated: "No waiver of a breach or any term or condition shall be a waiver of any other or subsequent breach of the same or any other term or condition." If Plaintiff sues to enforce the contract, what will be the result?

Question 2 options:

a) Judgment for Defendant because "time of the essence" clauses are not valid in promissory notes.

b) Judgment for Defendant because the Defendant was acting within the rights under the contract and did not waive the right to insist on timely payment.

c) Judgment for Plaintiff, if Plaintiff justifiably changed position in reliance on the right to make late payments and Defendant was estopped to insist on timely performance without providing reasonable notice.

d) Judgment for Plaintiff because "time of the essence" clauses are strictly enforceable.

Question 3 (0.5 points)

Handy contracted with Fleet Company so that Handy would maintain and repair Fleet's cars used by its sales force. In the agreement, Handy promised to "perform in a workmanlike manner and to the satisfaction of an independent automotive consultant as evidenced by said consultant's written certification." Handy performed the work and obtained an appropriate written certificate from an independent consultant. Fleet did not pay Handy and Handy sued. At trial Fleet offered proof that Handy's work had not been performed in a workmanlike manner. Is this evidence admissible?

Question 3 options:

a) No, the evidence fails to address whether the consultant was satisfied.

b) Yes, because the contract is ambiguous.

c) Yes, to show that the consultant may have acted dishonestly or in bad faith.

d) No, because Handy obtained the certificate pursuant to the terms of the contract.

Question 4 (0.5 points)

Alfred moved from Houston to Denver and contracted with Clarece Movers to move his furniture. The following provision was in the agreement: "Clarece Movers shall not be liable for damages unless written notice of claim for loss is given within 60 days of delivery of the goods." Alfred's furniture was damaged in transit while under the care of Clarece Movers. Clarece Movers was well aware of the damage. Thirty days after delivery, Alfred called Clarece Movers and gave notice of claim. Clarece movers immediately inspected the furniture. Alfred gave written notice of claim 90 days after delivery. Is Alfred barred from recovery against Clarece Movers?

Question 4 options:

a) Yes, because Alfred did not give written notice to Clarece Movers of a claim for loss within 60 days of delivery.

b) No, because Clarece Movers had notice of loss within 60 days of delivery.

c) No, if Alfred would suffer an extreme forfeiture if the claim is denied.

d) Yes, because written notice of claim within 60 days of delivery is a specific condition precedent to recovery.

Question 5 (0.5 points)

Under their agreement, Defendant assembled and sold a sophisticated computer to Plaintiff. After Defendant had completed the computer, Plaintiff's computer consultant approved the computer, causing Plaintiff to accept it. Thereafter, the computer would not function properly. Defendant tried to repair the computer, but failed. There was evidence that the computer contained an irreparable defect. If Plaintiff sues for damages, what will be the result?

Question 5 options:

a) Judgment for Plaintiff, even after acceptance a party may bring suit for material breach of contract.

b) Judgment for Defendant, Plaintiff's formal acceptance coupled with Defendant's attempt to cure satisfied the condition precedent to Plaintiff's obligation to pay.

c) Judgment for Defendant, because Plaintiff relied on his own consultant.

d) Judgment for Plaintiff, because there was a mutual mistake.

Question 6 (0.5 points)

Defendant hired Plaintiff to manufacture a certain machine to specifications. Time was made of the essence in the contract. Half way through the work Defendant told Plaintiff that he would not hold Plaintiff to the time frame so Plaintiff worked on other projects causing a delay. Later, but before the original time frame had expired, Defendant told Plaintiff "things have

changed" and that Defendant needed the machine by the original deadline. If Plaintiff could not complete the job by the original deadline, would Plaintiff succeed in an action to collect the contract price from Defendant?

Question 6 options:

a) No, because a waiver of an immaterial part of a contract may be withdrawn or modified.

b) Yes, because Defendant would not be permitted to reimpose the "time is of the essence" clause.

c) Yes, because the modification to change the due date was not valid.

d) No, because courts do not favor "time of the essence" clauses.

Question 7 (0.5 points)

Defendant hired Plaintiff to manufacture a certain machine to specification. Time was made of the essence in the contract and Plaintiff did not complete the project until 45 days after the contract completion date. Defendant cancelled the contract and refused to pay. Plaintiff files suit claiming Defendant made a change in the specifications that caused the delay. What would be the result?

Question 7 options:

a) Judgment for Plaintiff because he completed the project.

b) Judgment for Defendant because Plaintiff could have refused the changes and completed on time.

c) Judgment for the Defendant, because time was expressly made of the essence in the contract.

d) Judgment for the Plaintiff, if the Defendant changed the specifications in an untimely manner and caused the delay.

Question 8 (0.5 points)

A construction contract conditioned payments upon receipt of the certificate of the architect. The architect refused to issue a certificate stating: "The owner has instructed me to install trim of a specific type. I have never seen the type of trim specified, but at the same time the owner states that no other type of trim will be accepted, meaning that no alternative is possible. Therefore, I cannot issue a certificate until that has been done." What rule should apply to the architect's refusal to issue a certificate?

Question 8 options:

a) If a condition is express and called for the approval of an expert, such approval or non-approval must be upheld by a court.

b) If an expert acted in bad faith, the condition of the expert's approval will be excused.

c) If it is not expressed in the contract that an expert's approval must be made in good faith, then such expert can withhold such approval for any legal reason.

d) Where an expert's client instructed the expert not to approve an express satisfaction condition, the court must uphold the expert's refusal to approve and find the condition was not satisfied.

Question 9 (0.5 points)

Where a provision in a contract requires the approval of an attorney and the attorney's client tells the attorney not to approve the contract, which one of the following statements best describes the general rule?

Question 9 options:

a) The attorney's disapproval for any reason is final.

b) The attorney's disapproval will be upheld if the client made the request in good faith.

c) The attorney's disapproval will be upheld if the attorney's disapproval was made in good faith.

d) The attorney's disapproval will not be upheld.

Question 10 (0.5 points)

Dick wanted to sell his car, but was having no luck in so doing. Dick entered into an agreement with Pauline, whereby Pauline would procure a buyer at given terms and, if so, she would receive a commission at closing. Pauline procured a buyer, but Dick could not locate the title for his car and refused to apply for a lost title certificate from the appropriate government agency. The buyer backed out of the purchase. If Pauline files suit for her commission, what will be the result?

Question 10 options:

b) Judgment for Dick, because of the failure of an express condition precedent - the closing.

c) Judgment for Pauline, if she can get the buyer to recommit to the contract.

d) Judgment for Dick, because the buyer backed out of the contract.

a) Judgment for Pauline, because she obtained a purchaser for Dick's car as required by the contract and the "closing" condition was excused by Dick's refusal to apply for a lost title certificate.