Q&A Hero

Q: Which of the following are types of conditions that affect the performance obligations of the parties? A. Precedent and complete B. Subsequent and complete C. Concurrent and subsequent D. Precedent, subsequent, and concurrent E. Precedent and conditional

Q: A condition ______ is a particular event that must occur in order for a party's duty to arise. A. precedent B. subsequent C. concurrent D. at large E. certain

Q: A condition ______ is a future event that terminates the obligations of the parties when it occurs. A. precedent B. subsequent C. concurrent D. at large E. certain

Q: Which of the following conditions occur when each party's performance is conditioned on the performance of the other? A. Precedent B. Subsequent C. Concurrent D. At large E. Certain

Q: When a party's obligations under a contract are terminated, the party is said to be ______. A. finished B. terminated C. completed D. discharged E. recoursed

Q: A party's contractual obligations are terminated through _______________. A. performance B. the failure of a condition to occur C. operation of law D. performance, the failure of a condition to occur, and operation of law E. performance and the failure of a condition to occur, but not operation of law

Q: Contracts containing conditions affecting the performance obligations of the parties are called ______ contracts. A. uncertain B. conditional C. unreasonable D. voidable E. void

Q: An injunction is a court order that either forces or prohibits a party from doing something.

Q: The court will not award recovery on a quasi-contract.

Q: To recover damages on a quasi-contract, the plaintiff only has to show that the defendant received a benefit from the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has reasonably expected to be compensated for the benefit received by the defendant.

Q: When an enforceable contract does not exist, the court may grant a recovery based on quasi-contract in order to prevent an injustice from occurring.

Q: Rescission is the return of any property given up under the contract.

Q: Specific performance is an order requiring that the breaching party fulfill the terms of the agreement.

Q: Specific performance is the same relief sought as a reformation.

Q: All real property is considered unique.

Q: Liquidated damages will be enforced based upon the free-will concept of contracts even if the liquidated damages amount is unreasonable.

Q: Rewriting a contract to reflect what the parties had agreed on is referred to as rescission.

Q: Accord and satisfaction is used when one of the parties wants to substitute a difference performance for his original duty under the contract.

Q: Japanese law prohibits agreements relating to liquidated damages.

Q: The most frequently awarded damages are compensatory damages.

Q: Express conditions are conditions that are not specifically stated but inferred from the nature and language of the agreement.

Q: A breach occurs whenever a party fails to perform her obligations under the contract.

Q: An anticipatory repudiation must be in writing to be enforceable.

Q: A conditional contract is an agreement that becomes enforceable only on the happening or termination of a specific condition.

Q: If the contract contains a clause in which an event must occur in order for a party's duty to arise, then that contract contains a condition subsequent.

Q: A concurrent condition occurs when each party's performance is conditioned on the performance of the other.

Q: Set forth the circumstances resulting in a finding of anticipatory repudiation as well as the rights of a nonbreaching party when faced with anticipatory repudiation.

Q: Set forth the three main situations in which the courts find objective impossibility.

Q: Under ordinary circumstances, a party's duty to perform the promise agreed to in a contract is absolute.

Q: Contractual conditions may be expressly inserted into the contract by the parties but may not be implied.

Q: List the ways by which a party's contractual obligations can be terminated.

Q: Yolanda and Rodney agreed that Rodney would paint Yolanda's home for $800 with Yolanda supplying the paint. Rodney went to Yolanda's home on several occasions to do the job, but she never had the paint ready. Finally, he moves on to other jobs. Six months later Yolanda sues Rodney for not painting the home. Who is likely to win and why? Set forth the legal term for Rodney's offer of performance.

Q: Set forth the elements for a finding of substantial performance and the effect of a finding of substantial performance on damages.

Q: Earthquake. Stewart, the owner of ABC Construction, agreed with Joan, the owner of XYZ Hotel that he would complete renovations on her upper scale hotel on the beach in Florida by October 1. The amount due to Stewart under the contract was $250,000. The contract contained a clause by which Stewart would pay Joan $50,000 for each day he was late on completing the project. Unfortunately, an unexpected strong earthquake shook the area; and while the earthquake did not damage the hotel itself, Stewart encountered significant difficulty in getting supplies due to the high demand for building material following the earthquake. Because he believed that traveling, himself, to other states to obtain supplies would be prohibitively expensive, he delayed the project for two weeks while waiting for local stores to have sufficient supplies available. Stewart finished renovations six days late. Joan told Stewart that she owed him nothing but that he owed her $50,000. Stewart told Joan that he was suing for the entire $250,000 because it was not his fault the earthquake delayed matters. Which of the following is Stewart's best defense? A. Impossibility B. Commercial impracticability C. Frustration of purpose D. Profit reduction E. Material breach

Q: Earthquake. Stewart, the owner of ABC Construction, agreed with Joan, the owner of XYZ Hotel that he would complete renovations on her upper scale hotel on the beach in Florida by October 1. The amount due to Stewart under the contract was $250,000. The contract contained a clause by which Stewart would pay Joan $50,000 for each day he was late on completing the project. Unfortunately, an unexpected strong earthquake shook the area; and while the earthquake did not damage the hotel itself, Stewart encountered significant difficulty in getting supplies due to the high demand for building material following the earthquake. Because he believed that traveling, himself, to other states to obtain supplies would be prohibitively expensive, he delayed the project for two weeks while waiting for local stores to have sufficient supplies available. Stewart finished renovations six days late. Joan told Stewart that she owed him nothing but that he owed her $50,000. Stewart told Joan that he was suing for the entire $250,000 because it was not his fault the earthquake delayed matters. Which of the following is the appropriate term for the agreement that Stewart would pay Joan $50,000 for each day he was late in completion? A. Mitigated damages term B. Liquidated damages clause C. Stipulated damages D. Acknowledged damages clause E. Approved and acknowledged damages clause

Q: Earthquake. Stewart, the owner of ABC Construction, agreed with Joan, the owner of XYZ Hotel that he would complete renovations on her upper scale hotel on the beach in Florida by October 1. The amount due to Stewart under the contract was $250,000. The contract contained a clause by which Stewart would pay Joan $50,000 for each day he was late on completing the project. Unfortunately, an unexpected strong earthquake shook the area; and while the earthquake did not damage the hotel itself, Stewart encountered significant difficulty in getting supplies due to the high demand for building material following the earthquake. Because he believed that traveling, himself, to other states to obtain supplies would be prohibitively expensive, he delayed the project for two weeks while waiting for local stores to have sufficient supplies available. Stewart finished renovations six days late. Joan told Stewart that she owed him nothing but that he owed her $50,000. Stewart told Joan that he was suing for the entire $250,000 because it was not his fault the earthquake delayed matters. Assuming the earthquake does not affect Stewart's liability for damages, which of the following is true regarding the provision that he will pay $50,000 for each day he is late? A. It will be upheld based on freedom of contract. B. It will be upheld because the penalty per day is less than one half the amounts due for the job. C. It will be upheld as a stipulated amount. D. It will be struck because parties are prohibited as a matter of law from specifying damages. E. It will be struck as a penalty.

Q: Creaky and Toady. Beverly decides to go on a great trip to Hawaii. She needs someone, however, to take care of her two dogs, Creaky and Toady, while she is gone. Creaky has hives, and Toady passes gas frequently because of a digestive problem. Beverly hires Frank three months in advance and they reach a contractual arrangement whereby he will be paid $200 for keeping the dogs for two weeks. Frank comes over two months before Beverly is set to leave, takes one look at Creaky and Toady, and declares that they are too creepy to be around. Beverly then hires Alice who agrees to care for Creaky and Toady. Two weeks before Beverly is set to leave, however, Alice calls and tells her that she just broke both her legs in an automobile accident, sustained other injuries, and has been put on bed rest for two months. Finally, Alice hires Betty to care for the dogs and heads off to Hawaii where she has a great time. Unfortunately, when Beverly returns home, she finds that Betty fell in love with Creaky and Toady and has absconded with them. It was a month before Beverly was able to get a court order requiring their return. Which of the following is true regarding Frank's refusal to keep Creaky and Toady? A. He committed an anticipatory repudiation. B. He is not guilty of any breach because he gave Beverly sufficient warning that he was not willing to perform. C. He is not guilty of any breach because of the frustration of purpose doctrine. D. He is guilty of an immaterial breach because of the low value of the contract. E. He is guilty of a nominal breach.

Q: Creaky and Toady. Beverly decides to go on a great trip to Hawaii. She needs someone, however, to take care of her two dogs, Creaky and Toady, while she is gone. Creaky has hives, and Toady passes gas frequently because of a digestive problem. Beverly hires Frank three months in advance and they reach a contractual arrangement whereby he will be paid $200 for keeping the dogs for two weeks. Frank comes over two months before Beverly is set to leave, takes one look at Creaky and Toady, and declares that they are too creepy to be around. Beverly then hires Alice who agrees to care for Creaky and Toady. Two weeks before Beverly is set to leave, however, Alice calls and tells her that she just broke both her legs in an automobile accident, sustained other injuries, and has been put on bed rest for two months. Finally, Alice hires Betty to care for the dogs and heads off to Hawaii where she has a great time. Unfortunately, when Beverly returns home, she finds that Betty fell in love with Creaky and Toady and has absconded with them. It was a month before Beverly was able to get a court order requiring their return. Which of the following is true regarding Alice's refusal to keep Creaky and Toady? A. She is discharged from performance because of frustration of purpose. B. She is discharged from performance because of impossibility of performance. C. She committed a material breach. D. She failed to substantially perform but only committed an immaterial breach. E. She is guilty of only a nominal breach because she had a good excuse for breaching.

Q: Creaky and Toady. Beverly decides to go on a great trip to Hawaii. She needs someone, however, to take care of her two dogs, Creaky and Toady, while she is gone. Creaky has hives, and Toady passes gas frequently because of a digestive problem. Beverly hires Frank three months in advance and they reach a contractual arrangement whereby he will be paid $200 for keeping the dogs for two weeks. Frank comes over two months before Beverly is set to leave, takes one look at Creaky and Toady, and declares that they are too creepy to be around. Beverly then hires Alice who agrees to care for Creaky and Toady. Two weeks before Beverly is set to leave, however, Alice calls and tells her that she just broke both her legs in an automobile accident, sustained other injuries, and has been put on bed rest for two months. Finally, Alice hires Betty to care for the dogs and heads off to Hawaii where she has a great time. Unfortunately, when Beverly returns home, she finds that Betty fell in love with Creaky and Toady and has absconded with them. It was a month before Beverly was able to get a court order requiring their return. Which of the following would be an order from the court requiring that Betty return Creaky and Toady to Beverly? A. An injunction B. A conciliation C. A mitigation D. A directive E. A specific

Q: List and discuss the questions and factors considered by a court in determining whether a party is an intended or incidental beneficiary.

Q: Powder Room Mess. For $300,000, Willis agrees to build a new home for Robert, who is very picky. Willis builds the home to Robert's specifications with one exception. The faucets and linoleum flooring in an upstairs powder room are not exactly what Robert specified. That was a mistake on Willis' part, but he had not intentionally failed to follow specifications. When Robert sees the powder room, he goes ballistic and tells Willis that he will not pay Willis anything for the house. It will take $300 to put in correct faucets and linoleum. Willis says that he is willing to pay $300 to put Robert in the position he would have been in had the correct faucets and linoleum been used, but that is all he is willing to pay. Which of the following is true regarding whether Willis breached the contract? A. Willis did not breach the contract. B. Willis materially breached the contract. C. Willis substantially breached the contract. D. Willis breached the contract, but the breach was not material. E. Willis committed an anticipatory breach of the contract.

Q: Powder Room Mess. For $300,000, Willis agrees to build a new home for Robert, who is very picky. Willis builds the home to Robert's specifications with one exception. The faucets and linoleum flooring in an upstairs powder room are not exactly what Robert specified. That was a mistake on Willis' part, but he had not intentionally failed to follow specifications. When Robert sees the powder room, he goes ballistic and tells Willis that he will not pay Willis anything for the house. It will take $300 to put in correct faucets and linoleum. Willis says that he is willing to pay $300 to put Robert in the position he would have been in had the correct faucets and linoleum been used, but that is all he is willing to pay. Which of the following is most likely true regarding Robert's entitlement to damages from Willis? A. There are no damages because Willis did not breach the contract. B. Robert will not have to pay for the house because Willis failed to substantially perform. C. Even though Willis substantially performed, Robert will not have to pay for the house because Willis materially breached the contract. D. Robert is released from paying for the house because of an anticipatory breach. E. Any damages awarded would be in the range of $300, the amount it would take to fix the breach.

Q: Powder Room Mess. For $300,000, Willis agrees to build a new home for Robert, who is very picky. Willis builds the home to Robert's specifications with one exception. The faucets and linoleum flooring in an upstairs powder room are not exactly what Robert specified. That was a mistake on Willis' part, but he had not intentionally failed to follow specifications. When Robert sees the powder room, he goes ballistic and tells Willis that he will not pay Willis anything for the house. It will take $300 to put in correct faucets and linoleum. Willis says that he is willing to pay $300 to put Robert in the position he would have been in had the correct faucets and linoleum been used, but that is all he is willing to pay. Willis' offer to put Robert in the position he would have been in had the proper faucets and linoleum been used is based on the measure used for what type of damages? A. Nominal B. Punitive C. Compensatory D. Liquidated E. Consequential

Q: Lists four situations under which contractual rights cannot be assigned.

Q: Against whom may a donee beneficiary generally enforce rights and why?

Q: Maurice is excited because a developer plans a subdivision full of high priced homes that will adjoin his property. Maurice is so pleased that he puts in a new swimming pool to celebrate. Maurice believes that the subdivision will significantly increase the value of his property. The developer, however, changes his mind and decides not to develop the subdivision. Maurice is angry and asks if he can sue the developer, particularly since he can establish reliance. What would you tell Maurice and why? Discuss whether you agree with the law on this issue and why or why not.

Q: Set forth the eight exceptions to the parol evidence rule.

Q: Richard has insurance with ABC Insurer. Richard has a wreck with Susie. The adjuster for ABC Insurer orally agrees to pay Susie $1,000 for the damage to her car. The adjuster, however, gets in trouble with his boss for agreeing to pay too much. He tells Susie that he is backing out of the deal because the agreement is unenforceable on the basis that the statute of frauds requires that a contract to pay the debt of another be in writing. Is the adjuster correct? Why or why not?

Q: List and discuss two reasons why notice of assignment should be given.

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. What type of third-party beneficiary is Sally? A. Intended B. Creditor C. Both intended and creditor D. Both intended and donee E. Both creditor and donee

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 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: 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. What type of third-party beneficiary is Sam? A. Intended B. Creditor C. Both intended and creditor D. Donee E. Both creditor and donee

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: 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: 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 appropriate term for the marriage agreement entered into between Bruce and Sally? A. Marital solution agreement B. Marital dissolution agreement C. Prenuptial agreement D. Marriage acknowledgement agreement E. Marriage consideration agreement

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 is true regarding the rights of an incidental beneficiary to a contract to sue to recover incidental rights? A. An incidental beneficiary may sue to enforce incidental contractual rights so long as those rights have vested. B. An incidental beneficiary may sue to enforce incidental contractual rights only if the incidental beneficiary is also a creditor beneficiary. C. An incidental beneficiary may sue to enforce incidental contractual rights only if the incidental beneficiary is also a donee beneficiary. D. An incidental beneficiary may sue to enforce incidental contractual rights only if the incidental beneficiary is also a second-party beneficiary. E. An incidental beneficiary cannot sue to enforce a contract, which provided incidental benefits.

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