Which of the following is determinative regarding the effectiveness of an anti-assignment clause?

Multiple Choice

• TheRestatement of the Law of Contracts
• Statutory law in the jurisdiction where the anti-assignment clause was executed
• Common law in the jurisdiction where the anti-assignment clause was executed
• TheRestatement (Second) of the Law of Contracts
• The wording of the anti-assignment clause

Not So Rich Uncle. Bruce is attempting to convince Sally to marry him. He promises her that if she will marry him, he will buy a new Mercedes automobile for her within six months of the marriage and take her on a world tour within a year of the marriage date. Sally reluctantly agrees, and they sign an agreement by which Bruce agrees to provide the Mercedes and world tour. Bruce and Sally marry on January 1. Unexpectedly, on March 1, Bruce's supposedly rich uncle, Frank, dies. Frank has no living relatives other than Bruce, and Frank's will leaves everything to Bruce who is also appointed executor. In attempting to settle the estate, Bruce agrees orally to pay out of his own pocket debts of Frank totaling $10,000. Sally is concerned about Bruce's doing so. Bruce tells her not to worry because he will get all the money back when the estate settles. Bruce admits to a number of friends that he agreed to settle the debts out of his own pocket because he needed to obtain assets from the estate in a hurry. The assets were needed in large part to satisfy his obligations to Sally. Surprisingly, it later came to light that prior to his death Frank had signed away all his assets to his girlfriend in Argentina. There was nothing left in the estate for Bruce to inherit. Bruce disavowed his agreement to pay $10,000 to various creditors. Which of the following is the most likely result of Bruce's attempt to avoid his agreement to pay creditors of the estate out of his own pocket?

Multiple Choice

• A promise to pay debts of an estate out of an executor's own funds would come within the statute of frauds, but the oral agreement Bruce made will likely be enforceable under the main-purpose rule.
• He will be able to avoid the agreement because it was not in writing.
• A promise to pay debts of an estate out of an executor's own funds would come within the statute of frauds, but the oral agreement Bruce made will likely be enforceable under the substantial-purpose rule.
• A promise to pay debts of an estate out of an executor's own funds would come within the statute of frauds, but the oral agreement Bruce made will likely be enforceable under the primary-purpose rule.
• He will be able to avoid the agreement because a promise to pay the debts of an estate would never come within the statute of frauds.

New Furniture. Penny purchased $3,000 worth of furniture from Bob's furniture shop. Through an arrangement with Bob, Penny financed the purchase through a financing company called Let Us Help You. Twenty-nine days after the goods were delivered to her, Penny had a disagreement with Let Us Help You regarding the amount of interest she would be required to pay. She notified Bob on that day that she was rejecting the goods. Bob claimed that she did not properly reject the furniture and also that she acted in bad faith. Penny says that she properly rejected and denies that she acted in bad faith. She also says that, in any event, she cannot be sued for both wrongful rejection and also bad faith because of double jeopardy. Which of the following is true regarding the standard of good faith that would be applied regarding Penny?

Multiple Choice

• In this situation, good faith means both perfect tender and commercial practicability.
• In this case, good faith means honesty in fact.
• In this case, good faith means commercial practicability.
• In this case, good faith means perfect tender.
• In this case, good faith means honesty in fact and also reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.

Lake House. Harry has two houses, a house on the lake and a house in town. Rebecca wants to buy the house on the lake. Harry and Rebecca orally agree that Rebecca will buy the house on the lake for $300,000. Harry hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Rebecca for $300,000. Harry signs the top of the document. Rebecca does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Harry backs out of the contract, and Rebecca sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and because Rebecca did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in town, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house. Which of the following is true regarding Harry's assertion that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because he did not sign the document at the end?

Multiple Choice

• Harry is incorrect, because while the statute of frauds would require his signature on the document, there is no requirement that the signature be at the end.
• Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as both the selling price and the type of subject matter involved was referenced.
• Harry is correct.
• Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the selling price was referenced.
• Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced.