Purchase a course multi-pack for yourself or a friend and save up to 50%!
5-COURSE MULTI-PACK $180
10-COURSE MULTI-PACK $300
Accelerated 1-year bachelor's program
Question 1
The Metro Concert Hall enters into a contract with Phil Harmonic, the conductor of the local orchestra, under which Phil's orchestra will perform Mozart's Requiem on New Years Eve. The Masterpiece Theater, a competitor of The Metro Concert Hall, hears of Metro's contract with Phil and offers Phil more money to perform at the Masterpiece Theater on New Years Eve. As a result, Phil breaks his contract with Metro and performs at the Masterpiece Theater. In an action against Masterpiece for Interference with economic relations, Metro will:
Correct In order for a plaintiff to have a viable cause of action against defendant for interference with economic relations, the plaintiff must show that the defendant played an active role in interfering with the plaintiff's relationship with the third person. Here, by offering Phil more money and inducing Phil to breach his contract with Metro, Masterpiece has taken an active role in interfering with Metro's economic relationship with Phil. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! In order for a plaintiff to have a viable cause of action against defendant for interference with economic relations, the plaintiff must show that the defendant played an active role in interfering with the plaintiff's relationship with the third person. Here, by offering Phil more money and inducing Phil to breach his contract with Metro, Masterpiece has taken an active role in interfering with Metro's economic relationship with Phil. Therefore, A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
The Metro Concert Hall enters into a contract with Phil Harmonic, the conductor of the local orchestra, under which, Phil's orchestra will perform Mozart's Requiem on New Years Eve. The Masterpiece Theater, a competitor of The Metro Concert Hall, hears of Metro's contract with Phil and, on the night of the concert, an official from Masterpiece kidnaps Phil and Phil misses the performance. In an action against Masterpiece for Interference with economic relations, Metro will:
Correct In order for plaintiff to have a viable cause of action against defendant, plaintiff must show that defendant played an active role in interfering with plaintiff's relationship with the third person. However, defendant does not have to induce the third person to breach his contract with plaintiff in order to be liable. A showing that defendant made performance of the contract either impossible or very difficult for the third person will suffice to establish liability. Here, Masterpiece made it impossible for Phil to perform on the contract so A is the correct answer. B is incorrect because the information in the question does not support it. C is incorrect because, again, defendant does not have to induce the third person to breach his contract with plaintiff in order to be liable. A showing that defendant made performance of the contract either impossible or very difficult for the third person will suffice to establish liability.
Incorrect! In order for plaintiff to have a viable cause of action against defendant, plaintiff must show that defendant played an active role in interfering with plaintiff's relationship with the third person. However, defendant does not have to induce the third person to breach his contract with plaintiff in order to be liable. A showing that defendant made performance of the contract either impossible or very difficult for the third person will suffice to establish liability. Here, Masterpiece made it impossible for Phil to perform on the contract so A is the correct answer. B is incorrect because the information in the question does not support it. C is incorrect because, again, defendant does not have to induce the third person to breach his contract with plaintiff in order to be liable. A showing that defendant made performance of the contract either impossible or very difficult for the third person will suffice to establish liability.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
The Metro Concert Hall enters into a contract with Phil Harmonic, the conductor of the local orchestra, under which, Phil's orchestra will perform Mozart's Requiem on New Years Eve. After Phil signs with Metro, he hears that Masterpiece theater is looking for someone to perform on New Years Eve and is offering more money than what Metro agreed to give Phil. Phil goes to Masterpiece and offers to perform on New Years Eve. Masterpiece accepts Phil's offer and Phil then breaches his contract with Metro. In an action against Masterpiece for interference with a contract, Metro will:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct In order for plaintiff to have a viable cause of action against defendant, plaintiff must show that defendant played an active role in interfering with plaintiff's relationship with the third person. However, defendant does not have to induce the third person to breach his contract with plaintiff in order to be liable. Here, Masterpiece did not take an active role in interfering with Metro's economic relationship with Phil. Phil came to Masterpiece on his own and simply accepting an offer from Phil, even where Masterpiece knows that Phil is already contractually bound to Metro, is not enough to establish liability.
Incorrect! In order for plaintiff to have a viable cause of action against defendant, plaintiff must show that defendant played an active role in interfering with plaintiff's relationship with the third person. However, defendant does not have to induce the third person to breach his contract with plaintiff in order to be liable. Here, Masterpiece did not take an active role in interfering with Metro's economic relationship with Phil. Phil came to Masterpiece on his own and simply accepting an offer from Phil, even where Masterpiece knows that Phil is already contractually bound to Metro, is not enough to establish liability.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
CashLand, Inc. is a company that buys and develops tracts of real estate. They also give loans to real estate developers. Dave Developer applies for, and is given, a $500,000 loan from CashLand. With his $500,000, Dave negotiates an agreement with SwampCo to buy one thousand acres of swampland that Dave plans to turn into a luxury apartment complex. CashLand has already bought five hundred acres from SwampCo that are adjacent to the land Dave wants to buy and they are also interested in buying the one thousand acre plot. CashLand wants to turn all fifteen hundred acres into a luxury apartment complex. However, the five hundred acres they currently own is not big enough to build on and, if Dave buys the adjacent one thousand acres from SwampCo, Cashland's property will become worthless. In order to prevent Dave from performing on his contract with SwampCo and buying the land, Cashland recalls the $500,000 loan they gave Dave. In an action against CashLand for interference with a contract, Dave will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CashLand has an existing economic relationship with SwampCo. They have bought land from them and are trying to buy more. Therefore, CashLand is privileged to do what they did to interfere with Dave's contract with SwampCo.
Incorrect! The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CashLand has an existing economic relationship with SwampCo. They have bought land from them and are trying to buy more. Therefore, CashLand is privileged to do what they did to interfere with Dave's contract with SwampCo.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
CashLand, Inc. is a company that buys and develops tracts of real estate. They also give loans to real estate developers. Dave Developer applies for, and is given, a $500,000 loan from CashLand. With his $500,000, Dave negotiates an agreement with SwampCo to buy one thousand acres of swampland that Dave plans to turn into a luxury apartment complex. CashLand has already bought five hundred acres from SwampCo that are adjacent to the land Dave wants to buy and they are also interested in buying the one thousand acre plot. CashLand wants to turn all fifteen hundred acres into a luxury apartment complex. However, the five hundred acres they currently own is not big enough to build on and, if Dave buys the adjacent one thousand acres from SwampCo, Cashland's property will become worthless. In order to prevent Dave from performing on his contract with SwampCo and buying the land, CashLand writes a letter to SwampCo saying that Dave regularly reneges on land deals and that he will take ownership of the one thousand acres and disappear before making any payments on the contract. As a result of CashLand's letter, SwampCo refuses to honor its contract with Dave and sells the land to CashLand instead. In an action against CashLand for interference with a contract, Dave will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CashLand has an existing economic relationship with SwampCo. They have bought land from them and are trying to buy more. However, even if defendant's actions are justified so that privilege will protect him, he will lose the privilege if the means he uses to interfere with plaintiff and the third person are illegal or unethical. CashLand's defamation of Dave has defeated the privilege they have and therefore, D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CashLand has an existing economic relationship with SwampCo. They have bought land from them and are trying to buy more. However, even if defendant's actions are justified so that privilege will protect him, he will lose the privilege if the means he uses to interfere with plaintiff and the third person are illegal or unethical. CashLand's defamation of Dave has defeated the privilege they have and therefore, D is the correct answer.
Question 6
Sunshine Groves is a grower and wholesaler of oranges. The Squeeze Me Orange Juice Company signs a "requirements" contract with Sunshine. The contract states that Squeeze Me will buy all the oranges it needs from Sunshine. Before performance of the contract begins, CitruFarms, a competitor of Sunshine who has no business dealings with Squeeze Me, tells Squeeze Me that Sunshine's oranges are sour and not fit for juice. In an action against CitruFarms for interference with a contract, Sunshine will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CitruFarms did not have an existing economic relationship with Squeeze Me. Therefore, they had no privilege to interfere with Sunshine's contract with Squeeze Me. Please note that Sunshine may have a viable cause of action for defamation as well.
Incorrect! The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CitruFarms did not have an existing economic relationship with Squeeze Me. Therefore, they had no privilege to interfere with Sunshine's contract with Squeeze Me. Please note that Sunshine may have a viable cause of action for defamation as well.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 7
Sunshine Groves is a grower and wholesaler of oranges. The Squeeze Me Orange Juice Company signs a contract saying that Squeeze Me will buy oranges from Sunshine. Squeeze Me already has a similar contract with CitruFarms, a competitor of Sunshine's. Before performance of the contract with Sunshine begins, CitruFarms tells Squeeze Me that Sunshine's oranges are sour and not fit for juice. In fact, Sunshine grows a special breed of bitter orange that is not good for regular orange juice. In an action against CitruFarms for interference with a contract, Sunshine will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CitruFarms has an existing economic relationship with Squeeze Me. Therefore, they are privileged to interfere with Sunshine's contract with Squeeze Me. Please note that, even if CitruFarms' actions are justified so that privilege will protect them, they will lose the privilege if the means they use to interfere with plaintiff and the third person are illegal or unethical. Here, CitruFarms' actions do not defeat the privilege they have because their statements about Sunshine's oranges are true.
Incorrect! The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CitruFarms has an existing economic relationship with Squeeze Me. Therefore, they are privileged to interfere with Sunshine's contract with Squeeze Me. Please note that, even if CitruFarms' actions are justified so that privilege will protect them, they will lose the privilege if the means they use to interfere with plaintiff and the third person are illegal or unethical. Here, CitruFarms' actions do not defeat the privilege they have because their statements about Sunshine's oranges are true.
Question 8
Sunshine Groves is a grower and wholesaler of oranges. The Squeeze Me Orange Juice Company signs a contract saying that Squeeze Me will buy oranges from Sunshine. Squeeze Me already has a similar contract with CitruFarms, a competitor of Sunshine's. Before performance of the contract with Sunshine begins, CitruFarms tells Squeeze Me that Sunshine's oranges are sour and not fit for juice. In fact, Sunshine's oranges are perfectly fine for regular orange juice. In an action against CitruFarms for interference with a contract, Sunshine will probably :
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CitruFarms has an existing economic relationship with Squeeze Me. Therefore, they are privileged to interfere with Sunshine's contract with Squeeze Me. Please note that, even if CitruFarms' actions are justified so that privilege will protect them, they will lose the privilege if the means they use to interfere with plaintiff and the third person are illegal or unethical. Here, CitruFarms' actions defeat the privilege they have because their statements about Sunshine's oranges are false. Therefore, C is the correct answer
Incorrect! The only defense to a charge of interference with a contract is privilege. Where defendant is acting to protect her own economic interests, privilege will depend on whether the interest defendant is protecting is an existing interest or a potential interest. If defendant has an existing economic relationship with a third person, defendant is privileged to prevent performance of contracts that threaten that relationship. However, defendant is not protected by privilege if he has no existing relationship with the third person but interferes with the third person's economic relationship with plaintiff in order to advance his own business. Here, CitruFarms has an existing economic relationship with Squeeze Me. Therefore, they are privileged to interfere with Sunshine's contract with Squeeze Me. Please note that, even if CitruFarms' actions are justified so that privilege will protect them, they will lose the privilege if the means they use to interfere with plaintiff and the third person are illegal or unethical. Here, CitruFarms' actions defeat the privilege they have because their statements about Sunshine's oranges are false. Therefore, C is the correct answer