Here are 30 multiple-choice questions. They are taken from Strategies & Tactics for the Finz Multistate Method, a compendium of over 1000 questions by the late Professor Steven Finz designed to prepare students for the Multistate Bar Exam. The book is published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business and is available from your bookstore or by clicking on “Education” at www.wolterskluwerlb.com.
1. Immediately after his graduation from college in June, Stuart announced his plan to begin law school the following September and to marry Sue in December. Stuart’s father, Farrell, was afraid that marriage during Stuart’s first year of law school might cause him to fail or drop out of school. He called Stuart on the phone and said that if Stuart postponed his wedding plans until after the completion of his first year of law school, Farrell would give him a cash bonus of $1,000 and would pay Stuart’s tuition for the second year of law school. Stuart agreed, and called Sue to tell her that he wanted to postpone the wedding. She became so angry at him that she broke off their engagement. Two months later, Sue married someone else.
Farrell died soon after Stuart began school, but Stuart successfully completed his first year. Although Stuart earned excellent grades, he decided that he was not really interested enough in the law to want to continue his legal education. After failing to register for a second year of law school, he notified Farrell’s administrator of his decision. Stuart said that although there would be no tuition expense, he expected to be paid the $1,000 cash bonus which his father had promised him. The administrator refused to pay anything.
If Stuart brought suit against the administrator of Farrell’s estate for $1,000, Stuart would probably be
(A) unsuccessful, because his contract with Farrell violated public policy.
(B) unsuccessful, because Stuart failed to register for a second year of law school.
(C) unsuccessful, because Farrell’s death terminated his offer.
2. Corman was the owner of a condominium which consisted of an apartment with a patio and a small backyard. When he moved in, he entered into a written contract with Lansman. Pursuant to its terms, Lansman was to perform certain specified gardening services in the yard of Corman’s condominium each week for a period of one year, for which Corman was to pay the sum of $50 per month. The contract contained a clause which stated, “Corman hereby agrees not to assign this contract without the written permission of Lansman.” Three months after entering into the agreement, Corman informed Lansman that he was selling the condominium to Antun, and asked Lansman to consent to Corman’s assignment of the contract to Antun. Because the costs of landscaping materials had increased dramatically in the last three months, Lansman was glad for an opportunity to be relieved of his obligations under the contract, and refused to consent to the assignment. Corman assigned the contract to Antun anyway, but Lansman refused to perform any further work on the yard. After formally demanding performance from Lansman, Antun hired another gardener to do the same work for $75 per month which was the best price Antun could negotiate.
In an action by Antun against Lansman for breach of contract, the court should find for
(A) Antun, because Lansman had no right to unreasonably withhold consent to the assignment.
(B) Antun, because the assignment was valid in spite of Lansman’s refusal to consent.
(C) Lansman, because the contract prohibited assignment by Corman without Lansman’s consent.
(D) Lansman, because the contract was for personal services.