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
Sampson has a piece of property that Delilah wants to buy. She has asked Sampson several times to sell it to her but Sampson has always been hesitant. One night, Sampson and Delilah go out for dinner and Delilah again asks Sampson if he would be interested in selling his property to her. Sampson has no intention of selling the property to Delilah but he tells her he will sell it to her so that she will leave him alone about it. He even writes a contract of sale on a napkin, signs it, and gives it to Delilah who signs it as well. A week later, Delilah tries to pay Sampson for the land and take possession of it. Sampson informs Delilah that he was never serious about selling her the land and he refuses to let Delilah take possession of the property. If Delilah sues Sampson for breach of contract, she will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct In order for a contract to be formed, there must be mutual assent. In deciding whether or not there is mutual assent, courts use an objective "reasonable man" test in which the court examines the exchange between the parties that led to the establishment of the contract, and then determines what reasonable people in the place of the parties would have understood the exchange to mean. In this case, a reasonable person in Delilah's shoes would have thought that there was a binding contract between him and Sampson and as one that establishes a contract (since Sampson actually wrote a contract and signed it no one could have known that Sampson was not serious). Therefore, although Sampson was joking when he wrote out the contract, he has a binding agreement with Delilah that he has breached. That being the case, Delilah will win her suit and D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! In order for a contract to be formed, there must be mutual assent. In deciding whether or not there is mutual assent, courts use an objective "reasonable man" test in which the court examines the exchange between the parties that led to the establishment of the contract, and then determines what reasonable people in the place of the parties would have understood the exchange to mean. In this case, a reasonable person in Delilah's shoes would have thought that there was a binding contract between him and Sampson and as one that establishes a contract (since Sampson actually wrote a contract and signed it no one could have known that Sampson was not serious). Therefore, although Sampson was joking when he wrote out the contract, he has a binding agreement with Delilah that he has breached. That being the case, Delilah will win her suit and D is the correct answer.
Question 2
Sampson is getting ready to go on a job interview and decides he should probably have his hair cut. He does not have the time to go to a proper hair dresser so he knocks on his neighbor Delilah's door and offers her $50 if she will cut his hair. Without saying a word, Delilah leads Sampson to a chair and proceeds to give him a hair cut. After Delilah has finished, Sampson refuses to pay her. Delilah sues Sampson for the $50. At the trial, Sampson argues, and Delilah admits, that Delilah never explicitly agreed to give him the hair cut. Based on this argument, Sampson will win this case:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Unfortunately for Sampson, he and Delilah have an implied in fact contract (we called this a unilateral contract in the last part of the course. Don't let this confuse you. Basically, all unilateral contracts are implied-in-fact contracts). An implied in fact contract is a contract in which each party's promise is inferred from their act or conduct, or from words that are not explicitly words of agreement. Here, although there were no explicit words of agreement, Sampson's request and Delilah's act created an enforceable implied in fact contract. That being the case, Sampson will have to pay Delilah the $50 and FALSE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Unfortunately for Sampson, he and Delilah have an implied in fact contract (we called this a unilateral contract in the last part of the course. Don't let this confuse you. Basically, all unilateral contracts are implied-in-fact contracts). An implied in fact contract is a contract in which each party's promise is inferred from their act or conduct, or from words that are not explicitly words of agreement. Here, although there were no explicit words of agreement, Sampson's request and Delilah's act created an enforceable implied in fact contract. That being the case, Sampson will have to pay Delilah the $50 and FALSE is the correct answer.
Question 3
It is a beautiful April 1st day in St. Louis and Big John is getting ready to umpire the opening day baseball game between the St. Louis Cardinals and the Chicago Cubs. During the first inning, Big John begins to feel strange. He calls a time out and begins to walk to the Cardinals dug-out, but he collapses in convulsions before he gets there. Carter, a doctor from Chicago who has driven to St. Louis for the game is sitting a few rows behind the Cubs dug-out. He immediately recognizes that Big John is having a heart attack and he runs onto the field to help. Thanks to Carter's medical training, Big John survives the heart attack. A few days after the game, Carter sends Big John a bill for his medical services. Big John refuses to pay and Carter files suit. During the trial Carter admits that he never had an explicit agreement to treat Big John and he was only acting as a good samaritan but, he maintains that he should be paid for his services anyway. Carter will probably win this suit:
Correct Unfortunately for Big John, he and Carter have an implied-in-law contract. An implied in law contract is a contract where one party is required to compensate the other party for a benefit he received in order to avoid unjust enrichment. Here, Big John received medical services from Carter and, although Big John never asked Carter to render his services and there was no explicit agreement under which Big John would pay Carter for his services, allowing Big John to not pay for the (life saving) medical treatment he received would unjustly enrich Big John at Carter's expense. Therefore, Carter will probably win this case and TRUE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Unfortunately for Big John, he and Carter have an implied-in-law contract. An implied in law contract is a contract where one party is required to compensate the other party for a benefit he received in order to avoid unjust enrichment. Here, Big John received medical services from Carter and, although Big John never asked Carter to render his services and there was no explicit agreement under which Big John would pay Carter for his services, allowing Big John to not pay for the (life saving) medical treatment he received would unjustly enrich Big John at Carter's expense. Therefore, Carter will probably win this case and TRUE is the correct answer.