THIS IS MULTIPLE CHOICE ANSWERS. I DONT NEED AN EXPLANATION. JUST NEED TO CHOOSE THE CORRECT ANSWER PLEASE.

Basic Rule: A gambling contract is illegal unless it is a type of wagering specifically authorized by state statute.

Are gambling websites like DraftKings illegal?

		At the state level, legislation and regulation vary state-to-state. In recent years, many state legislatures have passed laws confirming and clarifying the legality of Daily Fantasy Sports contests.
		Gambling is illegal in all 50 states.
		Gambling is decided on a sliding scale from good to bad.
		Gambling is legal in all 50 states.

Many card issuers require borrowers to sign contracts that say the laws of a lender-friendly state will be applied to all future disputes. For example, NY customers might agree to live by Utah laws. Most courts continue to enforce these contracts that impose high out-of-state rates. But some courts have started to express distaste for this practice.

American Express Travel Related Services Co v. Assih

Facts: American Express alleged that NY resident Titus Assih missed a credit card payment. His interest rate ballooned from 12.24% to 21% and eventually to 27.99%. Eventually he stopped making payments all together. Amex sued Assih relying on the language, "This Agreement is governed by Utah law and applicable federal law." Utah usury statute provides: Parties to a lawful contract may agree upon any rate of interest for the loan.

Assih argued NY law which has strict limits on maximum rates should apply. NY Criminal usury rate 25%

Issue:

(1) Should New York or Utah law apply?

(2) Did the increased rates violate usury statutes?

		Utah law should apply and the increased rates did not violate Utah usury statutes.
		Utah law should apply since Utah usury statute provides: Parties to a lawful contract may agree upon any rate of interest for the loan.
		Utah law should apply and the rates are valid since Assih was not forced to enter the agreement.
		NY follows the "substantial relationship" approach, which provides: The law of the state chosen by the parties to govern their contractual rights and duties will be applied....unless the chosen state has no substantial relationship to the parties. The corporate plaintiff is incorporated in NY and its principal place of business is NY. Defendant resides in NY. Most of the transactions charged to the credit card took place in NY. Payments on the credit card are mailed to a NY address. Utah has no substantial relationship to the parties. Therefore, NY law applies. Under NY law, all usurious contracts are void and the lender forfeits both principal and interest.

Kory has operated a real estate office, Red Top, in a small city for 35 years, building an excellent reputation. She offers to sell you the business and its goodwill for $300,000. But you need assurance that Kory will not take the $300,000 and promptly open a competing office across the street. You insist on a non-compete clause in the sale contract.

In this clause, Kory promises that for one year, she will not open a new real estate office or go to work for a competing company within a 10-mile radius of Red Top.

Suppose, six months after selling you the business, Kory goes to work for a competing real estate agency two blocks away. You seek an injunction to prevent her from working.

Rule: To be valid, an agreement not to compete must be part of a larger agreement.

Who is likely to win?

		You will likely lose!!
		Kory is almost certainly not bound by the agreement and the court will uphold the injunction.
		You will likely win!!!
		Kory is almost certainly bound by the agreement and the court will uphold the injunction.

In Gardner v. Downtown Porsche Audi, Gardner left his Porsche 911 at Downtown for repairs. He signed an exculpatory clause saying that Downtown was "Not Responsible for Loss or Damage to Cars or Articles Left in Cars in Case of Fire, Theft, or Any Other Cause Beyond Our Control." Due to Downtown's negligence, Gardner's Porsche was stolen.

Was the exculpatory clause enforceable?

		Yes!!! The court held the clause enforceable.
		Downtown was not at fault.
		NO!!! The court held the clause void. It ruled that contemporary society is utterly dependent upon automobile transportation and Downtown was therefore in a business of great public importance. No repair shop should be able to contract away liability, and Gardner won.
		Yes!!! The court held the clause enforceable.

Bailment: Giving possession and control of personal property to another person.

Judges are slightly more apt to enforce an exculpatory clause in a bailment case because any harm is to property and not to persons.

In Weiss v. Freeman, Weiss stored personal goods in Freeman's self-storage facility. Freeman's contract included an exculpatory clause relieving it of any and all liability. Weiss's goods were damaged by mildew, and she sued.

Was the exculpatory clause valid?

		Yes, the court held the exculpatory clause valid. Judges are slightly more apt to enforce an exculpatory clause in a bailment case because any harm is to property and not to persons.
		No, the court held the exculpatory clause invalid. It does not matter if the harm is to property and or to persons.
		No, the court held the exculpatory clause invalid because the harm was to property.
		No, the court held the exculpatory clause invalid because when there is harm to property exculpatory clauses are never upheld.

Electronic Data Systems (EDS) agreed to create complex software for Chubb Life at a cost of $21 million. Chubb agreed to make staggered monthly payments. The contract included a limitation on remedies, stating that if EDS became liable to Chubb, its maximum liability would be equal to two monthly payments.

EDS's work was woefully late and unusable, forcing Chubb to obtain its software elsewhere. Chubb sued claiming $40 million in damages based on the money paid to EDS and additional funds spent purchasing alternative goods. Chubb argued the contract limitation on remedies of two monthly payments was unconscionable.

In lawsuits concerning defective goods, the seller often argues that the buyer's only remedies are those stated in the agreement, and the buyer responds that the contract limitation is unconscionable.

Was the contract limitation unconscionable?

Yes or No?

Select No if the contract limitation valid (not unconscionable) and Chubb could only recover the two monthly payments.

Select Yes, if the contract limitation was unconscionable meaning the Chubb could reasonably recover the $40 million being sought in damages.

Was the contract limitation unconscionable?

Yes No