Contracts and validity
the following is true regarding the defense of Sally and her
parents that the car was a necessary?
The claim will have no effect because the law does not
recognize the concept of necessaries when minors are involved.
Social status is always irrelevant in addressing a claim
that an item was a necessary.
Whether or not parents would buy the item at issue is
irrelevant in addressing a claim that an item was a necessary.
A minor may not disaffirm a contract for a necessary.
Even if a minor is allowed to disaffirm a contract for a
necessary, the minor will still be held liable for the reasonable value of the
necessary.
5. When a contract is voidable, it may be ____________.
Chargeable
Rescinded
Deassented
Reassented
Uncharged
6. In Japan a promise to give property to one party
gratuitously cannot be cancelled, regardless of whether or not it is in
writing.
True
False
7. Reference – Useless Friend. Charles, who is very gullible,
is friends with Bobby. Bobby, who cannot be trusted, decides to try to bind
Charles to a contract in Bobby’s favor. Bobby has Charles sign a contract
promising to wash Bobby’s car once a week for a month for $80. The contract
incorporated by reference terms on the back. The terms on the back were in very
small print and required Charles for one year to cook dinner for Bobby, do his
laundry, and clean his apartment. Bobby is also very angry with his former
girlfriend, Tessa, and decides to start rumors, that would constitute the tort
of defamation, such as that she has a vile disease, cheated on tests, and stole
from friends. Bobby wants to enlist the help of Charles but knows that Charles
would be hesitant to assist in his endeavors. One evening, however, Charles
drank too much beer and was clearly intoxicated – a fact apparent to Bobby.
Bobby had him sign a contract agreeing to defame Tessa for $50. When he sobers
up, Charles tells Bobby that he was drunk and that he has no intention of
defaming Tessa, who also happens to be Charles’ new girlfriend. He also finally
takes a look at the contract involving work for Bobby and tells Bobby that the
contract is outrageous and that he has no intentions of going through with any
of it. Which of the following would be a possible defense to Bobby’s contract
involving chores based upon the small print on the back of the contract?
Substantive unconscionability
Unclear drafting
Procedural unconscionability
Outrageous wording
Adhesion conscionability
10. Reference – Useless Friend. Charles, who is very
gullible, is friends with Bobby. Bobby, who cannot be trusted, decides to try
to bind Charles to a contract in Bobby’s favor. Bobby has Charles sign a
contract promising to wash Bobby’s car once a week for a month for $80. The
contract incorporated by reference terms on the back. The terms on the back
were in very small print and required Charles for one year to cook dinner for
Bobby, do his laundry, and clean his apartment. Bobby is also very angry with
his former girlfriend, Tessa, and decides to start rumors, that would
constitute the tort of defamation, such as that she has a vile disease, cheated
on tests, and stole from friends. Bobby wants to enlist the help of Charles but
knows that Charles would be hesitant to assist in his endeavors. One evening,
however, Charles drank too much beer and was clearly intoxicated – a fact
apparent to Bobby. Bobby had him sign a contract agreeing to defame Tessa for
$50. When he sobers up, Charles tells Bobby that he was drunk and that he has
no intention of defaming Tessa, who also happens to be Charles’ new girlfriend.
He also finally takes a look at the contract involving work for Bobby and tells
Bobby that the contract is outrageous and that he has no intentions of going
through with any of it. Which of the following is true regarding Charles’ claim
that he had no obligation to defame Tessa?
Charles is correct in that he could not be legally obligated
to commit defamation.
Charles is correct only if it can be proven that the
defamation would cause Tessa money damages.
Charles is correct only if it can be proven that the
defamation would cause Tessa actual injury.
Charles is correct only if it can be proven that the
defamation is undeserved.
Charles is correct only if it can be proven that he had a
prior relationship with Tessa.
16. Reference – Beauty Shop Woes. When Janice went to work
as a hair stylist in Rick’s beauty shop, she entered into an agreement with
Rick whereby if she left she would not work for another beauty shop within 50
miles for 2 years. Rick trained Janice in a number of new techniques. After
nine months, Janice was offered a great job down the street at a new beauty
shop, quit Rick, and had a number of customers follow her down the street to
her new job. Rick claimed that she had signed a contract and had no right to go
to work at the new shop. Janice disagreed and told Rick that no judge in the
country would enforce such an agreement. Janice told Rick that she was more
worried about a customer, Treena, who was threatening to sue her because her
hair turned green after Janice worked on it. Janice agreed that Treena’s hair
was damaged. Janice pointed out, however, that she told Treena that odd results
could result from a dye attempt, and she required that Treena sign a contract
releasing Janice from all liabilities before she did anything with Treena’s
hair. Treena, however, sued anyway. Which of the following is true regarding
Janice’s claim that no judge in the country would enforce such an agreement?
She is correct because such agreements are considered in
restraint of trade in every state.
She is incorrect because such agreements are criminally
illegal in every state.
She is incorrect because while no court would approve a
geographical restriction, some courts recognize time restrictions as being
valid.
She is incorrect because all courts approve such agreements
so long as it can be shown the employee gained a benefit other than pay from
the employment.
She is incorrect because courts across the country vary in
regards to the enforceability of such agreements.
18. Reference – Useless Friend. Charles, who is very
gullible, is friends with Bobby. Bobby, who cannot be trusted, decides to try
to bind Charles to a contract in Bobby’s favor. Bobby has Charles sign a
contract promising to wash Bobby’s car once a week for a month for $80. The
contract incorporated by reference terms on the back. The terms on the back
were in very small print and required Charles for one year to cook dinner for
Bobby, do his laundry, and clean his apartment. Bobby is also very angry with
his former girlfriend, Tessa, and decides to start rumors, that would
constitute the tort of defamation, such as that she has a vile disease, cheated
on tests, and stole from friends. Bobby wants to enlist the help of Charles but
knows that Charles would be hesitant to assist in his endeavors. One evening,
however, Charles drank too much beer and was clearly intoxicated – a fact
apparent to Bobby. Bobby had him sign a contract agreeing to defame Tessa for
$50. When he sobers up, Charles tells Bobby that he was drunk and that he has
no intention of defaming Tessa, who also happens to be Charles’ new girlfriend.
He also finally takes a look at the contract involving work for Bobby and tells
Bobby that the contract is outrageous and that he has no intentions of going
through with any of it. Which of the following is true under the Restatement of
Contracts, Section 16, regarding the claim of Charles that he should be able to
avoid the contract involving Tessa because he was intoxicated?
Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable by the
intoxicant if the other party had reason to know that because of the
intoxicated person’s condition, that person was unable to understand the nature
and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner
in relation to the transaction.
Contracts of an intoxicated person are void if the other
party had reason to know that because of the intoxicated person’s condition,
that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the
transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the
transaction.
Contracts of an intoxicated person are enforceable because a
person should be bound by his or her actions.
Contracts of an intoxicated person are void only if it can
be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the abuse of alcohol
by the intoxicated person.
Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable by the intoxicant
only if it can be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the
abuse of alcohol by the intoxicated person.
21 Reference – Irresponsible Teen. At age 17, in a state in
which the age of majority is 18, Sally purchased a prom dress from Formal
Stuff. She wore it to the prom and then attempted to return it to the store
claiming that she was a minor and that she was entitled to a refund. The dress
had clearly been worn and had a purple stain which Sally claimed was from grape
juice. Additionally, a few days before she turned 18, Sally purchased a used
car from Dings and Dents used cars. She had a deal whereby she paid $100 per
month on the car. She drove the car and made payments for fourteen months after
she turned 18. Then, she returned the car to Dings and Dents and told them that
she wanted all her money back. Dings and Dents claimed the car was a necessity.
Sally and her parents claimed that the parents were ready and willing to
provide a car to Sally and that she only purchased the car from Dings and Dents
because she liked that particular style and color. When purchases of the dress
and car were made, the sellers knew that Sally was under the age of 18. In the
dispute between Sally and the owner of Dings and Dents, which of the following
is true regarding any claim that Sally affirmed the contract?
So long as, after reaching the age of majority, Sally did
not state orally or in writing that she intended to be bound by the contract,
then she did not commit the type of express ratification required for her to be
bound.
Sally may have impliedly ratified the contract by making
payments for so long after she turned 18.
An implied ratification occurs when parents agree to accept
the debt entered into by a minor.
If Sally caused any damage whatsoever to the car, she was
said to have impliedly ratified the contract.
Sally was required to expressly ratify the contract before
she could be bound to it so long as no damage was done; but if she did any
damage to the car, as a matter of law, she is said to have expressly ratified
it.
25. Laura, who has a dress shop, likes a certain style of
dress and reaches an agreement with ABC Co., the designer and manufacturer of
the dress, that she will purchase all the dresses of that style that ABC Co.
can produce for $100 each. Later, ABC Co. learns of Sam, Laura’s competitor,
who is willing to pay double what Laura agreed to pay for the dresses. ABC Co.,
attempts to avoid the agreement with Laura on the basis that the agreement with
Laura was vague and that consideration was lacking. Which of the following is
the most likely result?
Laura will win on the basis of promissory estoppels.
Laura will win because she had a valid output contract.
Laura will win because she had a valid requirement contract.
ABC Co. will win because the contract with Laura was
insufficiently vague.
ABC Co. will win so long as Laura was given sufficient
notice of its decision to enable her to obtain dresses from some other
manufacturer.
ScholarMatic: Explanation & Answer
Your ready answer from a verified tutor is just a click away for as little as $14.99
Click Order Now to get 100% Original Answer Customized to your instructions!
