A) No, the law of contracts is known as comprehensive law.
B) Yes, statutory law is the primary law of contracts.
C) No, the common law is the primary law of contracts.
D) No, the restated contracts cases are the primary law of contracts.
E) No, there is no primary source of contract law, it is a big mixture of different bodies of law.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The court ruled that because it was a third-party beneficiary, BSI was required to pay the plaintiff the full amount of the commissions claimed.
B) The court ruled that because it was a third-party beneficiary, BSI was required to pay the plaintiff the reasonable value of the services rendered, not necessarily the contractual amount promised for commissions.
C) The court ruled that because a quasi-contract was involved, BSI was required to pay the plaintiff the full amount of the commissions claimed.
D) The court ruled that because a quasi-contract was involved, BSI was required to pay the plaintiff the reasonable value of the services rendered, not necessarily the contractual amount promised for commissions.
E) The court ruled that because the plaintiff did not have a contract with BSI, the plaintiff was entitled to no recovery from BSI.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) No, because e-contracts are legally valid.
B) Yes, to be valid, she needed to print the form, sign in, and send it in.
C) Yes, although an e-contract is valid, it is voidable.
D) Yes, since she paid the down payment, the contract was executory and e-contracts that are executory are void.
E) No, an e-contract is voidable where there is no consideration.
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) Mutual
B) Unilateral
C) Comprehensive
D) Subjective
E) Reasonable
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The court ruled for the plaintiffs for the following two reasons: (1) there was no contract because the plaintiffs did not assent to it, and (2) even if a contract existed, the contract was illusory and unenforceable because Zappos could avoid promises at any time.
B) The court ruled for the plaintiffs only because of its finding that no contract existed based on the plaintiffs' lack of assent.
C) The court ruled for the plaintiffs only because of its finding that the contract was illusory and unenforceable because Zappos could avoid promises at any time.
D) The court ruled in favor of Zappos on the basis that even though some provisions of the contract were unenforceable, because of the federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, the arbitration clause itself was enforceable.
E) The court ruled in favor of Zappos on the basis that the contract was properly entered into and was fully enforceable.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) A void contract
B) An executory contract
C) An implied contract
D) An executed contract
E) A voidable contract
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The contract is voidable, express, and executed.
B) The contract is void, implied, and executory.
C) The contract is express, bilateral, and executory.
D) The contract is implied, executed, and valid.
E) There is not a valid contract.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) No, because the technical terms of Section 29 take precedence.
B) No, because where there is a conflict between preprinted and handwritten terms, the preprinted ones prevail unless ambiguous.
C) Yes, but only because more specific provisions take precedence over general ones in a contract.
D) No, because Serena could not change the terms of the contract.
E) Yes, because a judge should interpret a contract so as to give effect to the parties' intentions at the time they entered into the contract, and there is evidence that they discussed and intended to have purple flowers.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) No, Section 29 is ambiguous and should be interpreted against Flo.
B) Yes, Serena should have read the contract more carefully and, if there were any ambiguity, she should have clarified it prior to signing.
C) Yes, Serena signed the contract.
D) Yes, Section 29 should be interpreted according to its plain language.
E) Yes, Section 29 is ambiguous and should be interpreted against Serena.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) He was the offeror.
B) He was the offeree.
C) He was the assentor.
D) He was the assentee.
E) He was the offeree and the assentee.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Majority
B) Emancipation
C) Contractual knowledge
D) Contractual capacity
E) Informed consent
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Check
B) Note
C) Letter of credit
D) Certificate of deposit
E) Draft
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) She was the offeror.
B) She was the offeree.
C) She was the assentor.
D) She was the assentee.
E) She was the offeree and the assentee.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) France
B) Italy
C) Spain
D) England
E) Switzerland
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Karina is correct. There was no contract because she had not started working.
B) Karina is incorrect because there was a bilateral, express agreement.
C) Karina is incorrect because there was a bilateral, implied agreement.
D) Karina is incorrect because there was a unilateral, express agreement.
E) Karina is incorrect because there was a unilateral, implied agreement.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Unilateral; complete
B) Unilateral; trilateral
C) Bilateral; trilateral
D) Unilateral; bilateral
E) Bilateral; complete
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 21 - 40 of 90
Related Exams