Question

QUESTION 20

1. Sally Smith loses her pet Persian cat. She posts a $100 reward offer. This offer is made to the public generally. Bill Jones finds the cat. Which of the following is most correct concerning his ability to claim the reward?

   	A.	all he must do is return the cat.
   	B.	he must return the cat after acknowledging beforehand that he is answering the reward.
   	C.	he need not return the cat until he receives the reward.
   	D.	he may not collect the reward unless he knew of the reward in advance.
   	E.	none of the above gives the correct answer. â

2.5 points   

QUESTION 21

1. Generally speaking, when a merchant places an ad in the newspaper offering to sell Browning shotguns for $450 each, this would be:

   	A.	an invitation seeking offers
   	B.	an offer, but not a firm offer
   	C.	not an offer, just an advertisement that is binding
   	D.	a firm offer
   	E.	none of the above

2.5 points   

QUESTION 22

1. Kiefer was a minor when he paid the contract price of $412 for a car purchased from Fred Howe Motors. Kiefer then had difficulty with the car and asked the dealer to take it back. After the dealer refused Kiefer's attorney wrote Howe, tendered return of the car, informed him Kiefer was a minor, declared the contract void, and demanded return of the $412. Howe refused. The court finds in favor of Keifer. Why?

   	A.	Howe did not provide good consideration of the contract.
   	B.	the contract violated the Statute of Frauds.
   	C.	Kiefer was a minor and minors can disaffirm their contracts.
   	D.	Equity demands that a minor cannot enforce a contract.
   	E.	Howe is liable for fraud.

2.5 points   

QUESTION 23

1. In question #22 above, the court ruled that Howe must pay Kiefer the $412, but then allowed Howe to claim $200 against Kiefer for damages to the car. What rationale could support Howe's claim?

   	A.	allowing Kiefer to escape liability for his damages would be violative of the unjust enrichment theory.
   	B.	Howe can sue Kiefer, a minor, on the Tort of Fraud in order to collect damages.
   	C.	Howe can sue Kiefer, a minor, on the contract.
   	D.	Kiefer has committed only partial performance and is thus liable for damages.
   	E.	none of the above.

2.5 points   

QUESTION 24

1. Burlington Industries, Inc., extended credit to Colonial Fabrics, Inc., for the sale to Colonial of yarn. Fowler is a major stockholder of Colonial. Burlington's credit manager contacted Fowler before allowing sales to Colonial on credit. Fowler stated verbally that he understood that Burlington was looking to him for payment. Colonial subsequently filed for bankruptcy and Burlington sued Fowler for $55,577.58. Fowler raised the Statute of Frauds in defense. Fowler raised the Statute of Frauds as a defense and hoped to "get out" of his promise based on the fact that:

   	A.	he had not put it in writing.
   	B.	he had no obligation nor would receive any benefit from his promise.
   	C.	there was no consideration on Burlington's part.
   	D.	there was no consideration of Fowler's part.

2.5 points   

QUESTION 25

1. Referring to question #24 above, the court finds that Fowler does owe the money to Colonial. Pick the best rationale that supported this conclusion.

   	A.	Fowler's oral promise is enforceable because he will receive a benefit from the performance of the promise.
   	B.	Fowler's promise falls within the Statute of Frauds and must be in writing.
   	C.	Fowler's promise falls outside of the Statute of Frauds because he is a merchant dealing in goods worth more than $500.
   	D.	Fowler is promissorily estopped from denying the existence of his promise.

Answer 1

20. The most correct option is B. This is the only option which completes the offer and acceptance cycle with specific performance on part of Bill Jones.

21. It is mainly an advertisement which is binding if all other regulatory terms and conditions are satisfied. Therefor alternative C is correct.

The advertisement could not be regarded as offer because any customer willingness to pay in response to that ad will constitute an acceptance to that offer resulting in a valid contract depriving the shopkeeper of basic economic rights of knowing the customer.

22.As a general rule, minor could not enter into a contract (except for necessaries). They could only be made beneficiaries by their lawful guardians but not a party to risks, liabilities or obligations. In the given scenario the contract is voidable at the option of Keifer making C the correct alternative.

23. There is no question of fraud (guilty mind) or partial performance. Therefor these options are ruled out. Besides, a minor generally could not sued under a contract. Leaving us with the first and last option. There is no enrichment as well since the so called damage is unintentional and does not cause any type of enrichment to any party involved. Therfore the last option is the most appropriate.

24. The correct alternative is B as the parties involved other than Fowler are limited laibility companies (separate legal entity). Therfore Fowler was under no obligation nor received any consideration against his promise. Besides there is no written guarantee given by Fowler regarding the sale on credit between the companies.

25.Fowler is promissorily estopped from denying the existence of his promise. Writing or verbal promise does not create a difference here.