Contracts Keyed to Frierback
0 of 5 questions completed
You have already completed the quiz before. Hence you can not start it again.
Quiz is loading…
You must sign in or sign up to start the quiz.
You have to pass the previous Module’s quiz in order to start this quiz:
you have successfully completed the quiz.
In late January, the manager of a grocery store announced via flyers and in the local newspaper that he would award a $700 in-store gift certificate to any shopper who generated more than $3,000 in sales on their store credit card for goods purchased in the store in the month of February.
A woman with a large family who regularly shopped at the store decided that she had a good chance to win the contest, so she bought a large deep freezer for $300 so she could buy food in bulk and store it at home. She then began buying large quantities of food and racking up purchases on her store credit card that were substantially higher than her usual monthly expenditures.
About two weeks later, the store manager realized that receipts for the month thus far had not increased enough to justify the cost of awarding the gift certificate, so he again put up flyers and took out an ad in the local newspaper, this time to announce that the contest was canceled. Although the woman saw the flyers, she continued to make larger than normal purchases at the store. At the end of the month, she had totaled more than $3,000 in purchases on her store credit card, but the store manager declined to give her the gift certificate.
If the woman sues for breach of contract, will she prevail?CorrectIncorrect
A professor who was an expert on American history conducted full-day tours through the historic sites of Philadelphia. The professor’s fee for his services was $105, which did not include the entrance fees for several of the historical sites. A law student took a day off school and “hung around” the Liberty Bell monument, where the professor’s tour started. That day the professor was conducting 27 persons on the tour. Most of the participants bad paid in advance, but the professor was holding up a sign with information about the tour and handing out brochures, one of which the law student took. The professor accepted a few additional participants who signed up on the spot, but the law student was not among them. All day long, the law student hung around at the fringe of this group, paying the entrance fees separately but following the group through the different historical sites. However, he always positioned himself close enough to the professor’s group so that he could hear virtually every word of the professor’s lecture, although the law student did not ask the professor any questions. The law student signed his name and address on the register at Independence Hall. The professor noted this and took down the information. Two days after the tour concluded, the law student received a bill from the professor in the amount of $105.
The law student will most likely be required to pay the professor:CorrectIncorrect
A landlord heard that a company was looking for old buildings to purchase and raze to make room for new development. On July 1, the landlord sent a letter to the company stating, “I own two adjacent apartment buildings that might meet your needs. One is located on 123 Main Street and the other property is right behind it on 123 Wood Street. I will sell you one or both of the apartment buildings for $250,000 each. This offer remains open until August l.” On July 15, the company faxed the landlord, “Accept your offer with respect to the apartment building on Main Street.” On July 18, the company faxed the landlord, “Will also take the building on Wood Street.” On July 22, the landlord discovered that he did not have good title to the Wood Street property.
Which of the following would provide the best legal support to the landlord’s contention that he was not liable for breach of contract as to the Wood Street property?CorrectIncorrect
An aspiring chef who made homemade hot sauce posted a notice on a bulletin board in a local grocery store stating: “Get a bottle of the hottest hot sauce on earth for only $5 directly from the maker. Not available in stores.” The ad listed the man’s home mailing address at the bottom. An entrepreneur wrote a letter to the address asking, “What’s your price for a case of hot sauce?” The man sent a written reply that said in its entirety, “I can do 12 bottles for $50. Sound good?” The entrepreneur subsequently mailed a check to the man in the appropriate amount, with a memo enclosed saying, “I accept your offer for a case of hot sauce.” The man shipped the case to the entrepreneur after receiving his check and memo, and with the shipment sent the entrepreneur an invoice that conspicuously stated the following lawful provision: “These items shall not be offered for resale at retail.” The entrepreneur received and read, but disregarded, the invoice restriction and began reselling the bottles for double the price he paid.
The man has a cause of action against the entrepreneur for breach of contract only if:CorrectIncorrect
On March 1, a southern realtor sent a letter to a northern realtor via U.S. Postal Service Express Overnight mail stating: “We hereby offer Blackacre and all of its fixtures for $2,000,000 cash.” The offer did not reach the northern realtor until March 3, and the southern realtor received a $10.75 refund from the Postal Service. On March 5, the northern realtor sent a letter via Express Mail to the southern realtor responding: “Thank you for your offer; it sounds agreeable, but would you be willing to accept $500,000 cash, monthly installments of $100,000 plus interest of 8 percent on unpaid principal?” The southern realtor sent a letter back the same day it received the northern realtor’s missive: “Forget about it. Money talks; everything else walks.” On March 10, the northern realtor mailed a certified check for $2,000,000 and a letter advising that the southern realtor’s original offer had been accepted. The northern realtor had not yet received the southern realtor’s response to its March 5 letter.
Was there a valid contract between the northern realtor and the southern realtor?CorrectIncorrect