Business Law

Q: What are the three main purposes of the statute of frauds?

Q: What types of contracts does the statute of frauds require to be in writing?

Q: Define the term "admission" in relation to contracts under the statute of frauds. Discuss the pros and cons of the rule on admissions, and whether you think courts should recognize admissions.

Q: Third-Party Woes. Trudy owed Sam $40 for a book she purchased from him. Trudy mowed Betty's yard for $40 and agreed with Betty that Betty would pay Sam for the book. Sam is not initially aware of the agreement. Betty pays no one. Trudy also mowed Bob's yard for $40 in return for Bob's agreement to give the payment to Sally representing Trudy's birthday present to Sally. Bob later refuses to do so saying that promises to give gifts are not enforceable. He then moves out of town. Trudy tells both Sam and Sally that she is broke, that Sam needs to get his $40 for the book from Betty, and that Sally is owed $40 from Bob for her birthday present. Which of the following is the likely result if Sam sues Betty for the $40 that Trudy owes him for the book? A. Sam will lose because the attempted delegation was against public policy. B. Sam will lose because his only right of action is against Trudy. C. Sam will lose because he was not aware of the assignment before the duties were completed. D. Sam will win only if he can prove that Trudy has insufficient funds with which to pay him. E. Sam will win.

Q: Third-Party Woes. Trudy owed Sam $40 for a book she purchased from him. Trudy mowed Betty's yard for $40 and agreed with Betty that Betty would pay Sam for the book. Sam is not initially aware of the agreement. Betty pays no one. Trudy also mowed Bob's yard for $40 in return for Bob's agreement to give the payment to Sally representing Trudy's birthday present to Sally. Bob later refuses to do so saying that promises to give gifts are not enforceable. He then moves out of town. Trudy tells both Sam and Sally that she is broke, that Sam needs to get his $40 for the book from Betty, and that Sally is owed $40 from Bob for her birthday present. Which of the following would be the likely result if Sally sues Trudy for the $40 promised to her for her birthday? A. Sally will win because Trudy is responsible for Bob's failure to pay. B. Sally will win only if she can prove that Bob is insolvent and unable to pay. C. Sally will win only if she can prove that she cannot find Bob in order to serve process on him. D. Sally will win only if she can prove both that Bob is insolvent and unable to pay, and that she cannot find Bob in order to serve process on him. E. Sally will lose because Trudy had no obligation to go through with the gift.

Q: Portraits. Belinda, a famous portrait painter, agreed to paint Harry's portrait for $5,000. She also agreed to paint the portraits of Michelle's two Welsh Corgi dogs, Baby and Bree. Michelle agreed to pay Belinda $12,000 for the portraits. Belinda charged Michelle more because dogs annoyed her. Belinda met the spoiled dogs, and they really got on her nerves. Plus, she was behind on finishing Harry's portrait. Belinda, therefore, proceeded to assign the right to receive the money for the dog portraits and the duty to paint the dog portraits to her assistant, Fred. He eagerly accepted and painted the portraits. As payment for amounts she owed him for various duties, Belinda also assigned to Fred the right to receive payment from Harry. Neither the contract Belinda had with Harry nor the contract she had with Michelle expressly prohibited assignment or delegation of contractual rights and duties. Belinda finished the portrait of Harry and called him to come and pick it up. Meanwhile, a disgruntled secretary who disliked Belinda told both Michelle and Harry about the agreements with Fred. Michelle was furious and refused to pick up the portrait or pay anyone. Harry likewise refused to pay for his portrait claiming that the right to payment could not be assigned. What would be the most likely result if Fred sues Michelle for the $12,000 payment? A. Fred will win only if Fred did a good job on the portraits. B. Fred will lose because Michelle's only obligation is to pay Belinda. C. Fred will win unless Michelle can prove that Fred knew that she did not want him to do the portraits. D. Fred will lose unless Fred can prove that he did not know that Michelle did not want him to do the portraits. E. Michelle will win because painting the portrait was personal in nature and could not be delegated.

Q: Portraits. Belinda, a famous portrait painter, agreed to paint Harry's portrait for $5,000. She also agreed to paint the portraits of Michelle's two Welsh Corgi dogs, Baby and Bree. Michelle agreed to pay Belinda $12,000 for the portraits. Belinda charged Michelle more because dogs annoyed her. Belinda met the spoiled dogs, and they really got on her nerves. Plus, she was behind on finishing Harry's portrait. Belinda, therefore, proceeded to assign the right to receive the money for the dog portraits and the duty to paint the dog portraits to her assistant, Fred. He eagerly accepted and painted the portraits. As payment for amounts she owed him for various duties, Belinda also assigned to Fred the right to receive payment from Harry. Neither the contract Belinda had with Harry nor the contract she had with Michelle expressly prohibited assignment or delegation of contractual rights and duties. Belinda finished the portrait of Harry and called him to come and pick it up. Meanwhile, a disgruntled secretary who disliked Belinda told both Michelle and Harry about the agreements with Fred. Michelle was furious and refused to pick up the portrait or pay anyone. Harry likewise refused to pay for his portrait claiming that the right to payment could not be assigned. What would be the most likely result if Fred sues Harry for the $12,000 payment? A. Harry will win because he did not expressly agree to the assignment. B. Fred will win because the right to receive payment could be validly assigned. C. Fred will win unless Harry can prove that Fred knew that Harry did not want the benefits assigned. D. Fred will lose unless Fred can prove that he was ignorant of the fact that Harry did not want the benefits assigned. E. Harry will win because the portrait was personal in nature and could not be assigned.

Q: Third-Party Woes. Trudy owed Sam $40 for a book she purchased from him. Trudy mowed Betty's yard for $40 and agreed with Betty that Betty would pay Sam for the book. Sam is not initially aware of the agreement. Betty pays no one. Trudy also mowed Bob's yard for $40 in return for Bob's agreement to give the payment to Sally representing Trudy's birthday present to Sally. Bob later refuses to do so saying that promises to give gifts are not enforceable. He then moves out of town. Trudy tells both Sam and Sally that she is broke, that Sam needs to get his $40 for the book from Betty, and that Sally is owed $40 from Bob for her birthday present. Which of the following would be the likely result if Sam sues Trudy for the $40 she owes him for the book? A. Sam will win because Trudy cannot avoid her obligations through a delegation. B. Sam will win but only because he was not aware of the assignment. C. Sam will win but only because the contract was for an amount under $1,000. D. Sam will win only if Betty cannot be found for service of process. E. Trudy will win because she delegated the duty of payment to Betty.

Q: Painted House. Billy had a contract to paint Jan's house for $800 including the duty to clean up any debris. The contract between Billy and Jan did not contain an anti-assignment clause. Billy, who was very busy, assigned the contract, including the right to payment and the duty to paint, to Richard who was interested in making some extra money and had experience painting. Billy did not tell Jan about the assignment because he did not want any trouble nor did Richard mention the assignment to her. In fact, Richard never met Jan because he painted while she was at work. After Richard did a good job painting the house, Jan sent a check to Billy for $800. Billy needed the money to pay some bills, so he spent it. He thought he would have money coming in with which to pay Richard, but that did not happen. Richard asked Jan for $800 when it was not forthcoming from Billy. Jan refused. Richard said that he was going to sue her and Billy. Jan called Billy and told him that he had no right to assign the contract. Another problem involved disposal of debris. Although Richard was a good, competent painter, he forgot and left some old paint cans at Jan's house. Jan demanded that Billy come and properly dispose of the paint cans because they could not simply be put in the trash. Billy refused and told her that she would have to get Richard to dispose of the paint cans because that was his responsibility. What would be the likely result of a lawsuit brought by Richard against Billy to recover the $800? A. Richard will win. B. Richard will win only so long as he had no reason to know that Billy had not given notice of the assignment to Jan and was, therefore, not on notice to notify Jan himself. C. Richard will win only if he can prove that he first brought a lawsuit against Jan and lost. D. Billy will win because Richard's only right of recourse is against Jan. E. Billy will win because Richard should have given notice to Jan himself.

Q: Painted House. Billy had a contract to paint Jan's house for $800 including the duty to clean up any debris. The contract between Billy and Jan did not contain an anti-assignment clause. Billy, who was very busy, assigned the contract, including the right to payment and the duty to paint, to Richard who was interested in making some extra money and had experience painting. Billy did not tell Jan about the assignment because he did not want any trouble nor did Richard mention the assignment to her. In fact, Richard never met Jan because he painted while she was at work. After Richard did a good job painting the house, Jan sent a check to Billy for $800. Billy needed the money to pay some bills, so he spent it. He thought he would have money coming in with which to pay Richard, but that did not happen. Richard asked Jan for $800 when it was not forthcoming from Billy. Jan refused. Richard said that he was going to sue her and Billy. Jan called Billy and told him that he had no right to assign the contract. Another problem involved disposal of debris. Although Richard was a good, competent painter, he forgot and left some old paint cans at Jan's house. Jan demanded that Billy come and properly dispose of the paint cans because they could not simply be put in the trash. Billy refused and told her that she would have to get Richard to dispose of the paint cans because that was his responsibility. Which of the following is true regarding Jan's statement to Richard that he had no right to delegate duties under the contract? A. Jan is correct because a personal type of service was involved. B. Jan is correct because the contract did not specifically give Richard the right to assign the contract. C. Jan is correct both because a personal type of service was involved and because the contract did not specifically give Richard the right to assign the contract. D. Jan is incorrect because the contract was not a personal service, and there was no requirement that the contract specifically reference the right to assign rights and duties. E. Jan is incorrect only because the contract and assignment were for an amount under $1,000. Otherwise, Richard had no right to assign the contract.

Q: Painted House. Billy had a contract to paint Jan's house for $800 including the duty to clean up any debris. The contract between Billy and Jan did not contain an anti-assignment clause. Billy, who was very busy, assigned the contract, including the right to payment and the duty to paint, to Richard who was interested in making some extra money and had experience painting. Billy did not tell Jan about the assignment because he did not want any trouble nor did Richard mention the assignment to her. In fact, Richard never met Jan because he painted while she was at work. After Richard did a good job painting the house, Jan sent a check to Billy for $800. Billy needed the money to pay some bills, so he spent it. He thought he would have money coming in with which to pay Richard, but that did not happen. Richard asked Jan for $800 when it was not forthcoming from Billy. Jan refused. Richard said that he was going to sue her and Billy. Jan called Billy and told him that he had no right to assign the contract. Another problem involved disposal of debris. Although Richard was a good, competent painter, he forgot and left some old paint cans at Jan's house. Jan demanded that Billy come and properly dispose of the paint cans because they could not simply be put in the trash. Billy refused and told her that she would have to get Richard to dispose of the paint cans because that was his responsibility. Which of the following is true regarding Billy's claim that he had no duty to pick up the paint cans? A. Billy is correct because he had validly delegated that duty to Richard. B. Billy is incorrect because the job was a personal service, and he had no right to assign either rights or duties under the contract. C. Billy is incorrect but only because the job was for under $1,000. D. Billy is correct only because Richard properly painted the house and was, therefore, responsible for ancillaries. If Richard had improperly painted the house, Billy would have had remaining duties. E. Billy is incorrect because his delegation did not affect his obligation to Jan.

Q: Portraits. Belinda, a famous portrait painter, agreed to paint Harry's portrait for $5,000. She also agreed to paint the portraits of Michelle's two Welsh Corgi dogs, Baby and Bree. Michelle agreed to pay Belinda $12,000 for the portraits. Belinda charged Michelle more because dogs annoyed her. Belinda met the spoiled dogs, and they really got on her nerves. Plus, she was behind on finishing Harry's portrait. Belinda, therefore, proceeded to assign the right to receive the money for the dog portraits and the duty to paint the dog portraits to her assistant, Fred. He eagerly accepted and painted the portraits. As payment for amounts she owed him for various duties, Belinda also assigned to Fred the right to receive payment from Harry. Neither the contract Belinda had with Harry nor the contract she had with Michelle expressly prohibited assignment or delegation of contractual rights and duties. Belinda finished the portrait of Harry and called him to come and pick it up. Meanwhile, a disgruntled secretary who disliked Belinda told both Michelle and Harry about the agreements with Fred. Michelle was furious and refused to pick up the portrait or pay anyone. Harry likewise refused to pay for his portrait claiming that the right to payment could not be assigned. What would be the most likely result if Belinda sues Michelle for the $12,000 payment? A. Belinda will win only if Fred did a good job on the portraits. B. Belinda will win regardless of what type of job Fred did on the portraits so long as he was a qualified portrait painter. C. Belinda will win regardless of whether Fred was qualified and regardless of whether he did a good job because the duties were validly delegated, and Michelle's only right of recourse is against Fred. D. Belinda will win because the contract did not contain an express provision prohibiting assignment or delegation of contractual rights and duties. E. Michelle will win because painting the portrait was personal in nature and could not be delegated.

Q: 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 also 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 Rebecca did not sign the document? A. Harry is incorrect because he is the one being sued, and he signed the document. B. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced. C. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the selling price was referenced. D. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require Rebecca's signature so long as both the selling price and the type of subject matter involved was referenced. E. Harry is correct.

Q: 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 also 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 under the parol evidence rule he alone had the right to identify the house referenced in the contract? A. Harry is correct. B. Harry is incorrect because under the parol evidence rule, Rebecca, as the buyer, would be allowed to identify the subject matter in the event of a discrepancy. C. Harry is incorrect because under the parol evidence rule, the judge would likely allow oral evidence regarding the house at issue in order to clarify an ambiguity. D. Harry is incorrect because the parol evidence rule would not apply in situations involving an ambiguity. E. Harry is incorrect because the parol evidence rule would not apply in the absence of a merger clause.

Q: Painted House. Billy had a contract to paint Jan's house for $800 including the duty to clean up any debris. The contract between Billy and Jan did not contain an anti-assignment clause. Billy, who was very busy, assigned the contract, including the right to payment and the duty to paint, to Richard who was interested in making some extra money and had experience painting. Billy did not tell Jan about the assignment because he did not want any trouble nor did Richard mention the assignment to her. In fact, Richard never met Jan because he painted while she was at work. After Richard did a good job painting the house, Jan sent a check to Billy for $800. Billy needed the money to pay some bills, so he spent it. He thought he would have money coming in with which to pay Richard, but that did not happen. Richard asked Jan for $800 when it was not forthcoming from Billy. Jan refused. Richard said that he was going to sue her and Billy. Jan called Billy and told him that he had no right to assign the contract. Another problem involved disposal of debris. Although Richard was a good, competent painter, he forgot and left some old paint cans at Jan's house. Jan demanded that Billy come and properly dispose of the paint cans because they could not simply be put in the trash. Billy refused and told her that she would have to get Richard to dispose of the paint cans because that was his responsibility. What would be the likely result of a lawsuit brought by Richard against Jan to recover the $800? A. Richard will win because Jan accepted the risk that the contract would be assigned. B. Richard will win only so long as Billy has not been declared bankrupt because Jan will be able to recover the amounts at issue from Billy. C. Richard will win only so long as the assignment was for an amount under $1,000. D. Jan will win because she had no notice that the contract had been assigned and could, therefore, legally pay Billy. E. Jan will win only so long as the assignment was for an amount over $500.

Q: 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 true regarding Bruce's promises to Sally of a Mercedes and a trip? A. The promises fall within the statute of frauds. B. The promises do not fall within the statute of frauds because they involve material matters, not matters involving home and children. C. The promise regarding the Mercedes falls within the statute of frauds but the promise regarding the trip does not. D. The promise regarding the trip falls within the statute of frauds but the promise regarding the Mercedes does not. E. The promises would have fallen within the statute of frauds in earlier times in history, but would not fall within the statute of frauds in this day and time.

Q: 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? A. He will be able to avoid the agreement because it was not in writing. B. 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. C. 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. D. 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. E. 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.

Q: 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 also 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? A. Harry is correct. B. 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. C. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the selling price was referenced. D. Harry is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced. E. 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.

Q: Which of the following is a consideration of courts in determining whether a person is an incidental or intended beneficiary? A. The courts ask if a reasonable person in the position of the party in question would believe the contracting parties intended to benefit the party in question. B. The courts ask if it is substantially certain that the contracting parties intended to benefit the party in question. C. The courts ask if it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the contracting parties intended to benefit the party in question. D. The courts ask if the party in question paid something for the rights. E. The courts ask if the party in question paid at least $500 for the rights.

Q: A(n) ______ beneficiary is one who unintentionally gains a benefit from a contract between other parties. A. incidental B. creditor C. donee D. vested E. accidental

Q: Which of the following references the maturing of rights such that a party can legally act on the rights? A. Absoluting B. Gelling C. Forming D. Vesting E. Finishing

Q: Creditor beneficiaries can enforce their rights under a contract whenever the contract is ______. A. fair B. incidental C. valid D. substantial and valid E. recognizable and fair

Q: When a donee beneficiary may enforce his rights under a contract, he may do so only against the _____. A. promisee B. promisor C. obligor D. promisee and promisor, but not obligor E. promisee, promisor, and obligor

Q: A(n) ______ beneficiary is a third party that benefits from a contract in which the promisor agrees to pay the promisee's debt. A. creditor B. donee C. incidental D. promised E. avowed

Q: Lawrence v. Fox was one of the earliest cases that upheld the right of: A. tenants to sue their landlords B. enforcement of an oral contract for land C. third parties to sue promisors D. creditors to sue debitors E. obligors to sue obligees

Q: A(n) ______ beneficiary is a third party who benefits from a contract in which a promisor agrees to give a gift to a third party. A. creditor B. donee C. incidental D. promised E. avowed

Q: A(n) ______ beneficiary is a third party to a contract whom the contracting parties intended to benefit directly from their contract. A. intended B. incidental C. preferred D. collateral E. ancillary

Q: The ______ in a third-party beneficiary contract is the party to the contract who made the promise that benefits the third party. A. promisee B. promisor C. obligor D. obligee E. None of these. There are no third-party beneficiary contracts, only second-party beneficiary contracts.

Q: The ______ in a third-party beneficiary contract is the party to the contract who owes something to the promisor in exchange for the promise made to the third-party beneficiary. A. promisee B. promisor C. obligor D. obligee E. None of these. There are no third-party beneficiary contracts, only second-party beneficiary contracts.

Q: Which of the following is a type of intended beneficiary? A. Creditor B. Donee C. Incidental D. Creditor, donee, and incidental E. Creditor and donee, but not incidental

Q: Which of the following is a duty that typically cannot be delegated to a third party? A. Mowing a yard B. Payment of money owed C. Delivering goods D. Painting a house E. Painting a portrait

Q: What do courts generally rule regarding ambiguous assignment language such as "I assign the contract"? A. When ambiguous language is used, the court usually considers the assignment to be of both rights and duties. B. When ambiguous language is used, the court usually considers the assignment to be of rights but not duties. C. When ambiguous language is used, the court usually considers the assignment to be of duties but not rights. D. When ambiguous language is used, the court usually considers the assignment to be void. E. When ambiguous language is used, the court usually considers the assignment to be voidable.

Q: A ______ is created when two parties enter into a contract with the intended purpose of benefiting a third party. A. third-party beneficiary B. second-party beneficiary C. first-party beneficiary D. void E. voidable

Q: A third party who is not part of an original contract but who is transferred a duty to perform contained in the original contract is called a(n) ______. A. delegatee B. delegator C. assignor D. assignee E. transferor

Q: Bill contracts with Judy to wash her car and then delegates the duty to Paul. Paul fails to wash the car. Which of the following is true regarding Bill's duty to Judy, if any? A. Bill has no duty to Judy so long as she did not expressly object to the delegation. B. Bill has no duty to Judy regardless of whether she objected to the delegation. C. Bill continues to be bound to Judy to see that her car gets washed. D. Bill continues to be bound to Judy to see that her car gets washed only if the contract expressly prohibited delegation. E. Bill continues to be bound to Judy to see that her car gets washed unless he already paid Paul for the job.

Q: A party to a contract who transfers her duty to perform to a third party who is not part of the original contract is called a(n) ______. A. delegatee B. delegator C. assignor D. assignee E. transferor

Q: At what point are assignments valid? A. Immediately B. One day after the assignment is made C. Two days after the assignment is made D. One day after notice of the assignment is given E. None of these

Q: Which of the following states that in the case of multiple assignments of the same right, the first party granted the assignment is the party correctly entitled to the contractual right? A. The first-assignment-in-time rule B. The last-assignment-in-time rule C. The English rule D. The French rule E. The American rule

Q: Which of the following states that in the case of multiple assignments of the same right, the first assignee to give notice of assignment to the obligor is the party with rights to the contract? A. The first-assignment-in-time rule B. The last-assignment-in-time rule C. The English rule D. The French rule E. The American rule

Q: A(n) ______ occurs when a party to a contract transfers her duty to perform to a third party that is not part of the original contract. A. transfer B. assignment C. delegation D. performance E. unenforceable occurrence

Q: Sally agrees to mow Paul's yard for $300 for the summer. Paul wishes to assign the contract to his grandmother. Sally objects because Paul's yard is very small while the grandmother's yard is over an acre. Which of the following is the correct legal outcome for the dispute between Sally and Paul? A. Sally will win because Paul's attempted assignment would increase the duties to which she agreed. B. Sally will win because all assignments are invalid without the obligor's consent. C. Sally will win unless Paul paid her the $300 in advance in which case Paul will win. D. Paul will win because he may validly assign the contract without Sally's consent. E. Paul will win so long as he tells Sally about the assignment prior to the time she begins any performance whatsoever.

Q: When parties include a(n) ______ clause in their contract, the parties are attempting to limit their ability to assign their rights under the contract. A. anti-obligation B. anti-assignment C. anti-contract D. severability E. integration

Q: Which of the following is most accurate regarding what may be assigned even in the presence of an anti-assignment clause? A. Assignments made by operation of law. B. Assignments for the right to receive monetary payments. C. Assignments for the right to receive damages for a breach of contract to sell goods or services. D. Assignments made by operation of law, and assignments for the right to receive monetary payments, but not assignments for the right to receive damages for a breach of contract to sell goods or services. E. Assignments made by operation of law, assignments for the right to receive monetary payments, and assignments for the right to receive damages for a breach of contract to sell goods or services.

Q: Which of the following is needed in order for an assignment to be valid? A. A UCC 2-301 Form. B. A UCC 4-305 Form. C. A Business 2-547 Form. D. A Business 4-298 Form. E. No form is required.

Q: Which of the following is true regarding oral assignments? A. Assignments may not be made orally. B. The UCC requires that assignments be in writing when the amount being assigned is greater than $5,000. C. Assignments are not covered by the statute of frauds. D. The UCC requires that assignments be in writing when the amount being assigned is greater than $2,000. E. Both that assignments may be made orally and that the UCC requires that assignments be in writing when the amount being assigned is greater than $1,000.

Q: Which of the following is an exception to the general rule that rights to a contract cannot be assigned when a contract is personal in nature? A. When the only part of a contract left to be fulfilled is the payment. B. When the sale of goods is involved. C. When no more than half the contractual duties have been performed. D. When no more than three-fourths of the contractual duties have been performed. E. When at least one-third of the contractual duties have been performed.

Q: What is the term for the party to a contract who transfers her rights to a contract to a third party? A. Transferor B. Transferee C. Relator D. Assignor E. Assignee

Q: What is the term for the third party who receives an assignment of contract rights? A. Transferor B. Transferee C. Relator D. Assignor E. Assignee

Q: Which of the following is false regarding rights of an assignee and assignor? A. Assignees essentially fill in for the assignor as the legal recipient of contractual duties. B. Assignees acquire the same rights as the assignor had. C. Assignees are offered additional protection than assignors. D. The obligor may raise any of the same defenses for nonperformance to the assignee that he would have been able to raise against the assignor. E. When an assignor transfers rights to an assignee, the assignor legally gives up all rights she previously had to collect on the contract.

Q: Which of the following is a contractual party who agrees to receive something from the other party? A. Obligor B. Obligee C. Assignor D. Assignee E. Boundee

Q: Which of the following occurs when a party to a contract transfers her rights to a contract to a third party? A. Assignment B. Referral C. Disgorgement D. Privity E. Transfer

Q: One way parties can indicate their desire to create an integrated contract is through the use of a(n) ______ clause. A. complete B. merger C. adhesion D. bilateral E. acknowledged

Q: Which of the following is a contractual party who agrees to do something for the other party? A. Obligor B. Obligee C. Assignor D. Assignee E. Boundee

Q: Which of the following are exceptions to the parol evidence rule? A. Contracts that have been subsequently modified B. Contracts conditioned on orally agreed-on terms C. Contracts that are not final as they are part written and part oral D. Contracts with ambiguous terms E. All of these

Q: An event that must occur in order for a party's duty to arise is called a(n) ________________. A. integrated contract B. parol evidence C. condition precedent D. incomplete contract E. delegation

Q: Which of the following are written contracts intended to be the complete and final representation of the parties' agreement? A. Complete contracts B. Integrated contracts C. Adhesion contracts D. Bilateral contracts E. Acknowledged contracts

Q: When may a court rule that parol evidence may be admissible to further the court's understanding of an agreement? A. When a court determines that a written agreement represents a complete and final version of the agreement. B. When a court determines that a written agreement does not represent a complete and final version of the agreement. C. When a court determines that there is disagreement between the parties over performance of the agreement. D. When a court determines that the plaintiff failed to do sufficient research to determine if signing the agreement was advisable. E. When a court determines that either party failed to obtain counsel to determine if signing the agreement was advisable.

Q: Which of the following is false regarding the parol evidence rule? A. It is not limited to spoken words. B. It is a rule of evidence. C. It relates to substantive legal issues. D. It is an amalgamation of different rules and conditions. E. It applies to writings created at the same time as the written agreement.

Q: A(n) ______ clause is a clause parties include in a written agreement within the statute of frauds that states that the written agreement accurately reflects the final, complete version of the agreement. A. adhesion B. complete C. parol D. merger E. consolidation

Q: The ______ rule is a common law rule that addresses the admissibility of oral evidence as it relates to written contracts. A. oral admissibility B. oral evidence C. parol evidence D. frauds evidence E. deficient evidence

Q: What does the term "parol" in the "parol evidence rule'' mean? A. Words establishing penalties B. Speech inside the original writing C. Words outside the original writing D. Words excusing breach of contract E. Untrue speech outside the original writing

Q: What is a purpose of the parol evidence rule? A. To restrict oral evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form. B. To restrict written evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form. C. To restrict oral and written evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form. D. To restrict hearsay from being admitted that supports or contradicts an agreement in its written form. E. To restrict evidence from being admitted that substantially contradicts an agreement in its written form.

Q: In contracts other than those governed by the UCC, which of the following are required elements for a writing to be considered sufficient under the statute of frauds? A. Identification of the parties to the contract. B. Identification of the subject of the agreement. C. Identification of the penalties for nonperformance. D. Identification of the parties to the contract, identification of the subject of the agreement, and identification of the penalties for nonperformance. E. Identification of the parties to the contract and the subject of the agreement, but not penalties for nonperformance.

Q: Which of the following is true regarding a signature on a document falling within the statute of frauds? A. There is no requirement of any signature of either party to satisfy the statute of frauds. B. Any party required to sign must sign at the beginning of the document. C. Any party required to sign must sign at the end of the document. D. Any party required to sign must sign both at the end and at the beginning of the document. E. So long as it is meant as a signature, a party required to sign may sign at any place on the document.

Q: Which of the following parties must sign a document coming within the statute of frauds? A. The party against whom action is sought B. The offeror only C. The offeree only D. Only a person who has agreed to pay the debt of another E. Any party to the contract

Q: Which of the following may constitute a writing under the UCC? A. Faxes B. E-mails C. Formal written contracts D. Invoices E. All of these

Q: Even if they would normally have to be in writing, if applicable criteria are met, oral contracts for _____ goods are enforceable. A. retailed B. wholesale C. collateral D. consumer E. customized

Q: If the buyer in an oral contract for the sale of land has paid any portion of the sale price, has begun to permanently improve the land, or has taken possession of the land, the courts will consider the contract partially performed, under _______________________. A. substantial performance B. partial performance C. sales substantiation D. the purchase proof rule E. the sales proof rule

Q: Which of the following is the legal enforcement of an otherwise unenforceable contract due to a party's detrimental reliance on the contract? A. Promissory estoppel B. Substantial estoppel C. Promissory rule D. Reliance rule E. Promissory reliance

Q: Which of the following are possible exceptions to the statute of frauds? A. Admission B. Partial performance C. Promissory estoppel D. Admissions, partial performance, and promissory estoppel E. Admission and partial performance, but not promissory estoppel

Q: A statement made in court, under oath, or at some stage during a legal proceeding in which a party against whom charges have been brought admits that an oral contract existed, even though the contract was required to be in writing is called a(n) _________. A. admission B. submission C. deposition D. interrogatory E. confirmation

Q: All states except ______ adhere to the admission exception to the statute of frauds. A. Hawaii and Alaska B. Louisiana and New York C. Louisiana and California D. Kentucky and Florida E. North Carolina and Montana

Q: Which of the following sections of the Uniform Commercial Code addresses the requirement of a writing when a certain amount of goods are sold? A. 2-201 B. 1-101 C. 3-102 D. 2-305 E. 4-203

Q: Which of the following is needed in order to satisfy the UCC's requirement for a written document? A. The contract or memorandum needs only to state the price of the goods. B. The contract or memorandum needs only to state the quality of the goods. C. The contract or memorandum needs only to state the quantity to be sold. D. The contract or memorandum needs to state the price of the goods and the quality of the goods, but not the quantity to be sold. E. The contract or memorandum needs to state the price of the goods, the quality of the goods, and also the quantity to be sold.

Q: A rule requiring that a contract that would normally fall under the statute of frauds and need a writing if negotiated by the principal must be in writing even if negotiated by an agent is called ________________________. A. suretyship B. an equal dignity rule C. an admission D. partial performance E. promissory estoppel

Q: Within the statute of frauds, "land" encompasses not only the land and soil itself but anything ______ to the land. A. relating B. adjacent C. contracted D. attached E. pertinent

1 2 3 … 1,671 Next »

Subjects