you can also like us
Judgment for SCE, if Jackson's removal of funds from the engineering department's budget was a reasonable and foreseeable response to ICT's offer.
Judgment for SCE, because Jackson's removal of funds from the engineering department's budget converted ICT's offer into an express option.
Judgment for ICT, because its promise to supply equipment to SCE was not supported by consideration.
Not recover, because he was in a drunken stupor when injured.
Judgment for ICT, because its revocation was received by Jackson before she dispatched the acceptance letter.
If Walter has given George a written notice of termination, Walter will have the right to refuse to accept the 250 tons of grapes but will have no cause of action for damages against George.
Even if Walter has given George a written notice of termination, Walter must accept the 250 tons of grapes and will have no cause of action for damages against George.
Since Vinnie's purchase establishes that it is possible for George to perform by obtaining additional grapes from other available sources, Walter may accept the 250 tons from George and recover damages for George's failure to deliver the balance of the amount specified by the contract.
Since George's contract with Walter was entered into before his contract with Vinnie, George is bound to deliver the entirety of his grape crop to Walter.
There was no consideration supporting her promise to Zelda to make good any losses.
She did not intend to offer to pay Zelda for the loss of her professional career when she said she would make good any losses.
She was in error when she assumed that her father's heart attack was the cause of the accident.
She did not know that Zelda would not be able to play basketball when she offered to make good any losses.
Judgment for Jones, because he was informed of the original agreement and did not participate in the modification.
Judgment for Jones, because he assented to the original agreement.
Judgment for Brown, because the original agreement was modified before Jones's rights became vested.
Judgment for Brown, because his contract was with Smith, not Jones.
Neither can recover because Victim, the assignor, is a third-party beneficiary of the liability policy, whose rights thereon can be no better than Tortfeasor's.
Neither can recover unless Insurer knowingly waived the defense of Tortfeasor's minority and irresponsibility.
Neither can recover because the liability policy, and settlement thereunder, are unenforceable because of Tortfeasor's minority.
Either Holder or ABC Furniture, depending on priority, can recover as assignee (or subassignee) of Victim's claim because the latter arose from Insurer's settlement agreement, the latter agreement not being vitiated by Tortfeasor's minority and irresponsibility when he obtained the policy.
Yes, because Prodigal was a thirdparty intended beneficiary of the original Mater-Vault deposit agreement.
Yes, because Prodigal was a constructive assignee of Mater's claim, as depositor, to the savings account.
No, because Prodigal never obtained possession of the passbook.
No, because Prodigal's right, if any, to the funds on deposit was effectively abrogated by the second Mater-Vault deposit agreement.
No, because failure of an express condition precedent would excuse MacDougall Corporation of its duty to pay TM.
No, because a claim for reasonable value of services would be inconsistent with a claim by MacDougall Corporation against TM for breach of contract.
Yes, because MacDougall Corporation continued to use the new food processing system and was aware that TM expected to be paid for its services.
Yes, because MacDougall Corporation continued to use the new food processing system and would realize $1.8 million per year as a consequence of the contractual relationship between the parties.
His reliance on the job offered by Producer by declining another job opportunity created an estoppel against Producer.
His failure to perform with the orchestra for four days was not a material failure so as to discharge Producer's duty to perform.
His performance with the orchestra for the four-day period was physically impossible.
Fiddler was never told that an injury might jeopardize his continued employment with the orchestra.
I. and II.
I. and III.
II. and IV.
I., II., III., and IV.
Ruby, as a female, did not perform as a police officer as well as her male counterparts.
Ruby had failed to include in her application the fact that during college she was a member of a radical student organization.
Ruby had not been granted permanent employment status.
Ruby had graduated in last place in her class at the police academy.
Win, because there was no additional consideration to support a release.
Win, because the dollar amount of the agreement is large enough that the Statute of Frauds applies.
Lose, because a rescission has taken place.
Lose, because Jenny and Plunger mutually agreed to a release.
Zeller has a cause of action against Baker, because Zeller has substantially performed his contract.
Zeller is excused from performing his contract because of impossibility of performance
Baker has a cause of action against Zeller for Zeller's failure to deliver 100 bushels of wheat.
Baker is obligated to give Zeller a reasonable time to attempt to obtain the other five bushels of wheat.
It is physically possible to build the house according to the original specifications by the sinking of many pilings deep into the ground for support, although it would add $1 million to Brikk's costs.
The detailed specifications in the agreement had been drawn up by Brikk, as were other blueprints and plans for the house.
Neither Wendy nor Brikk had reason to know of the underground river before the contract was signed.
Dorothea knew of the contract between Wendy and Brikk, and her sole reason for turning down the opportunities to purchase suitable housing was reliance on the contract.
Yes, but only if its February 3 letter contained the quantity term.
Yes, regardless of whether its February 3 letter contained the quantity term because the letter merely confirms a prior deal for 500 series 4 tires.
No, because Smithson's February 3 letter varied the terms of Ridewell's offer.
No, because Ridewell is the party to be charged and has signed nothing.
Judgment for ICT, because it could not be determined with sufficient specificity what MSU's needs for equipment would be, there having been no time to ascertain how many new engineering degree students would apply to the expanding degree program.
Judgment for ICT, because MSU's obligation under any contract is illusory|no additional students will necessarily apply to an expanded engineering degree program.
Judgment for MSU, because ICT is classified as a merchant under the U.C.C. and its offer was therefore irrevocable.
Judgment for MSU, because Marchand's letter was an effective acceptance of ICT's offer and an enforceable contract was thereby formed.
I. and II., but not III.
I. and III., but not II.
II. and III., but not I.
None of the above.
Amalgamated is entitled to enforce the agreement, as it gave Pet Products prompt notice of the assignment from Hair of the Dog.
There was no mutuality of obligation in the original agreement between Pet Products and Hair of the Dog and hence there was nothing to 'assign' to Amalgamated.
Amalgamated cannot compel Pet Products to fill the order for 5,000 cases of pet food.
Amalgamated is entitled to enforce the agreement if it is willing to pay cash, as one person's credit is not necessarily as good as another's.
Babe can recover the $5,000 because the preexisting duty rule does not apply where the duty is owed to a third person.
Babe can recover the $5,000 if he can prove that the value of the home run to Jimmy is at least $5,000.
Babe cannot recover from Joe because Babe had a preexisting duty to use his best efforts to hit home runs.
Babe cannot recover from Joe because, even under the modern trend, moral consideration is not valid.
Yes, because the contract is for the sale of goods for more than $500 and Patrick's attempted rejection is oral.
Yes, because Andrew's letter of acceptance was effective when he mailed it.
No, because Andrew's rejection was communicated to Patrick before his letter of acceptance was received.
No, because the description of the subject matter as 'the stuff in our house' is not sufficiently definite and certain.
I. and II. only.
II. and III. only.
None of the above.
The Statute of Frauds prevents the enforcement of Sandy's oral agreement.
The record title of the property as joint tenancy can be changed only by a duly recorded instrument.
Ben could not unilaterally sever the joint tenancy.
Ben's expenditure of funds in building the apartment house in reliance on Sandy's oral promise estops her from denying the oral permission.
There is no enforceable contract because the car cannot be sold unless both owners convey title.
There is an enforceable contract only if Bob was unaware of Winnie's interest when he signed with Sam.
There is an enforceable contract regardless of whether Bob was aware of Winnie's interest at the time he signed.
The contract is discharged by prospective inability of performance.
Specific performance is an equitable remedy, and because Odivia waited for over a year to sue, the equitable defense of laches will apply.
Specific performance is inappropriate, because a contract for personal services is involved.
Specific performance is not an appropriate remedy if nominal legal damages are available to Odivia.
Specific performance is inappropriate, because Odivia's failure to obtain another contractor for the job is an indication that $12,500 was an unfair price.
$2,000, which represents the difference between Plunger's bid and the amount Jenny had to pay for plumbing work.
Nothing, because $12,000 was a reasonable amount to pay for the work performed.
Nothing, because Jenny did not accept Plunger's bid before it was withdrawn.
There is no contract between WidgeCo and Distrucorp, because Distrucorp made a material alteration.
There is a valid, enforceable contract between WidgeCo and Distrucorp, but it is limited to the terms of WidgeCo's offer.
There is a valid, enforceable contract between WidgeCo and Distrucorp, and it contains the additional term because WidgeCo raised no objection.
Distrucorp has sent a valid counteroffer to WidgeCo, which WidgeCo can accept or reject.
The parties did not manifestly intend a contract.
Gray's death terminated the agreement.
The agreement was oral.
The agreement was divisible.
) The contract was illusory.
The contract was oral.
There was no consideration flowing to Grandfather.
The fact that Nephew received a year's worth of free education and tuition was sufficient compensation for Nephew's efforts in earning the three As.
Yes, because she partially performed by placing ads for Bluto during the first six months of the agreement.
Yes, because she detrimentally relied on Bluto's promise to place ads when she refused other clients.
No, because Olive provided no consideration for the agreement between Popeye and Bluto.
No, because Popeye's exclusive use of Bluto's repair shop was a condition for Bluto's duty to purchase ads through Olive, and Popeye's actions excused Bluto's duty to Olive.
Yes, because the shoes were defective.
Yes, because he made only partial payment.
No, because Warden accepted the shoes, and failed to seasonably notify Michael of any rejection due to the defects.
No, unless the defects were substantial.
No, the contract is void because the subject of the contract was destroyed through no fault of the parties.
No, Builder is discharged of his obligation because of impossibility of performance.
Yes, if Owner obtains an alternative lot within a reasonable period of time.
No, the contract is void because of mutual mistake.
Tarbel should recover nothing from the college because Tarbel breached the contract.
Tarbel should recover $200,000 in quasicontract from the college, which is the difference between its expenditures and the amount the college paid the other contractor to complete the work.
Tarbel should recover $250,000 in quasicontract from the college, which is the contract price minus the amount the college paid the other contractor to complete the work.
Tarbel should recover $275,000 in quasicontract from the college, which is the difference between the value of the completed remodeling and the amount the college paid the other contractor to complete the work.
Statute of Frauds.
Parol evidence rule.
Rules of construction.
$1,500, the amount assigned, and Son may look to Purveyor to recover for the minor breach.
The reasonable value of the labor and materials expended by Purveyor on the portion of the job it did complete.
$1,350, on a theory of substantial performance.
Nothing, because Son's duty to pay is subject to a constructive condition precedent, and the assignee takes subject to the defense that the condition has not been satisfied.
Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of a rapist within the scope of the offer.
Only by an offeree's return promise to make a reasonable effort to bring about the arrest and conviction of a rapist within the scope of the offer.
By an offeree's communication of assent through the same medium (radio) used by the city in making its offer.
By an offeree's supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of a rapist within the scope of the offer.
Yes, because they are merchants under the Uniform Commercial Code.
Yes, because Genoa fully performed.
No, because Rudder had agreed not to subcontract. May Jim cancel the contract?
No, because of the Statute of Frauds.
The sale discharges its obligation to Indegas because there has been a full performance
Cal-Tex is liable for damages if the other oil company fails to deliver gasoline to Indegas
Cal-Tex is excused from further performance because it has no more refineries to produce gasoline.
Cal-Tex breached its contract with Indegas.
A counteroffer, because it changes the terms of the offer.
A counteroffer, because it was not a definite expression of acceptance.
An acceptance, and Sam must board the bull but is entitled to the reasonable value of that service.
An acceptance, and Sam may refuse to board the bull.
Yes, if Cordero has not yet filed suit against Gabrielle.
No, unless Cordero is not able to recover the money from Gabrielle.
Yes, unless Cordero has expressly agreed with Gabrielle and Tina that Gabrielle would assume Tina's duties under the contract.
No, because Gabrielle expressly assumed Tina's duties under the contract
Recover whatever amount Quack shows is his normal fee for the treatment.
Recover a reasonable price for his services.
Not recover, because no price term was contained in the original contract.
Not recover, because Quack cannot prove that he was the cause of Mary's recovery.
Several of the paintings cracked when they were being transported by Fang because they were brittle with age.
The day after the purchase, a respected art historian announced in a press release that many William Hamilton paintings were actually done by his students and other associates, causing the value of all William Hamilton paintings to decline.
Because of some experimental pigments that the artist had used, the colors began to fade rapidly as soon as the paintings were exposed to light; within a few days, virtually all of the colors had faded away.
The gallery for which Fang had procured the paintings was destroyed by a fire shortly after the contract was executed.
The fair market value of his work, under a quasi-contract theory.
The cost of materials and labor, under a quasi-contract theory.
$20,000, the contract price.
Nothing, because Willie has not paid Mary.
Damages measured by the difference between the value of the goods delivered and the value of conforming goods.
Damages measured by the price paid plus the difference between the contract price and the cost of buying substitute goods.
None, since he waived his remedies by agreeing to pay before inspection.
Since Triton's offer failed to state that it was a single lot only, it was subject to partial acceptance at the buyer's option.
Triton should prevail because the offer specifically offered 500 drill bits and it would be commercially unreasonable to hold the seller to piecemeal sales at the stated price.
The attempted formation of a contract is flawed by ambiguity so that the minds of the parties never met and no enforceable obligation to sell was created by Banfield's acceptance.
Parol evidence is admissible on the question of whether the offer contemplated sale of the bits as a single lot or piecemeal
Martha, because there was a breach of contract.
Martha, because she had a reasonable time after purchase in which to inspect.
Skysheim, because Martha accepted the goods.
Skysheim, because Martha did not give written notice of the breach.
Only those terms set forth in Triton's letter of March 5, because the offeror has not assented to any enlargement of the terms regarding mode of shipment.
All terms set forth in Triton's offer plus consistent additional terms proposed in Banfield's acceptance.
All terms set forth in Triton's offer plus those in Banfield's attempted acceptance, provided that Banfield's proposals did not amount to a material alteration of Triton's offer
The terms of the offer plus all those in the purported acceptance which did not amount to a material alteration of the offer and to which the offeror did not object within a reasonable time.
Betsy, because Stan was fully compensated for his dictionary and making Betsy pay would therefore result in unjust enrichment.
Betsy, because destruction of the dictionary avoids the contract and discharges her duty to pay.
Stan, because when he contracted with Betsy, the risk of loss passed to her.
Stan, because of the doctrine of equitable conversion.
$1,500, representing the difference between the cost of cover and the contract price.
) $800, representing the difference between the contract price and the nonlocal supplier's price.
$500, representing the difference between the contract price and the wholesale market price at the time of performance.
Nothing, because Retailer obtained cover without waiting a commercially reasonable time for Wholesaler to retract the repudiation.
An accord and satisfaction.
Enforceable to the extent that Indegas purchased the gasoline.
Enforceable in all respects.
Unenforceable, because there was no consideration for Indegas's agreement to take only one-half of the gasoline produced.
Unenforceable, because the contract did not state the amount of gasoline produced by each refinery.
The covenant as properly interpreted was not breached, and the assignment was effective.
The covenant made the assignment to Equitable Loan Co. ineffective.
Typitrite's assignment was a breach of its contract with Ace Business Supplies, but was nevertheless effective to transfer to Equitable Loan Co. Typitrite's rights against Ace Business Supplies
The covenant is effective if the parties can establish a rational reason for including the covenant into their agreement.
Yes, because Boris merely estimated the cost of the dental work to be $3,500.
No, because there is an account stated.
No, because there has been an accord and satisfaction of the original debt.
Yes, if Boris can prove to the court that the precious metal inlays were medically necessary and that he charged a fair price for them.
Yes, because Carver knew that the value of the stock was greater than the price she offered.
Yes, if Carver did not inform Page of the true value of the inventory.
No, unless Carver told Page that the stock was not worth more than $6 per share.
No, if Chemco's financial statement was available to Page.
Grant money damages only to Bard.
Grant specific performance to Bard.
Grant Bard only the right to retain the 10000
Require Bard to refund the $10,000 to Cutter.
Yes, because Wing fulfilled Biddlebaum's terms and her motive for doing so is unimportant.
Yes, because Biddlebaum's anti-drug activities morally obligate Biddlebaum to pay Wing.
No, because not smoking during the Campout Weekend was good for Wing's health and in no a detriment to Wing.
No, because Wing would not have smoked during the Campout Weekend in any case and cannot be said to have been induced into abstinence by Biddlebaum's offer
Yes, in the amount of $1,150.
Yes, in the amount of $500.
Yes, in the amount of $400.
An enforceable contract.
Unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
Unenforceable, because a contract in writing cannot be modified orally.
Unenforceable under the parol evidence rule.
Stan, because his name was appropriated by ZBS for a commercial purpose.
Starr, because the seclusion of his retirement has been upset.
Starr, because he has been portrayed in a false light.
ZBS, if the show as a whole was complimentary to Starr
Yes, because it was not impossible for FGF to perform.
Yes, because FGF assumed the risk that making pate would become expensive.
No, because the expense of fixing the oven provides a good faith reason for stopping production.
No, because the cancellation provision made the contract illusory.
Yes, because Vidor-Holly sold the painting after Pontecorvo's effective acceptance, and before Vidor-Holly's revocation became effective.
Yes, because in his revocation Vidor-Holly did not refund the full $500 to Pontecorvo.
No, because Vidor-Holly effectively revoked his offer before Pontecorvo accepted.
No, because Pontecorvo's power to accept lapsed before Pontecorvo effectively accepted.
No effect, because Hospital's rights vested when the contract was made.
Hospital can still sue if it can prove that it had detrimentally relied on the parties' agreement before finding out that they had changed the agreement.
The subsequent agreement would, on its execution, cut off Hospital's right to institute an action under the original agreement.
Hospital can still sue if it can prove that it had learned of the original agreement between Sole Man and Jansen before they changed it.
Yes, because there was an implied acceptance that Jenny would use the lowest bid for electrical contracting.
Yes, because Ohmco's bid was an offer for an option contract that was accepted upon acceptance of the general contract.
No, because Jenny never communicated an acceptance of Ohmco's offer.
No, because Jenny's advertisement for bids did not constitute an offer.
Cordero, because he was a third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Tina and Gabrielle.
Cordero, because he is an assignee of Tina's rights against Gabrielle.
Gabrielle, because there was no consideration for her promise to Tina.
Gabrielle, because the surety provision of the Statute of Frauds prevents Cordero from enforcing Gabrielle's promise.