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
Ivan is a Wall Street executive who has a suite of offices on the twentieth floor of the New York Stock Exchange building in New York City. Michael is the general supervisor for Gotham Security, Inc., the security company that guards and monitors the building. As part of Michael's job as supervisor, he makes rounds throughout the building each night at midnight, 2:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., and 6:00 A.M. Although the rounds are thorough, Michael is not required to actually check each office in the building. Ivan does not like the fact that his suite of offices is not looked in on every night and he promises Michael that if Michael looks in on his offices every time he makes rounds, Ivan will give Michael free investment advice. For the next several weeks, Michael looks in on Ivan's offices during each of his rounds. However, when Michael asks Ivan for investment advice, Ivan refuses to give it to him. If Michael sues Ivan for breach of contract, he will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The legal duty rule says that promises to perform acts that the promisor is already legally required to perform are not valid consideration that will make a contract enforceable. Additionally, the legal duty rule is applicable to a promise by an official whenever the action is within the scope of the official's duties even if performance of the specific act is not legally required. Here, Michael does not have a specific duty to watch Ivan's offices since he makes his rounds without paying attention to Ivan's suite. However, the legal duty rule is applicable here because monitoring Ivan's offices is within the scope of Michael's duty as the building's security guard.
Incorrect! The legal duty rule says that promises to perform acts that the promisor is already legally required to perform are not valid consideration that will make a contract enforceable. Additionally, the legal duty rule is applicable to a promise by an official whenever the action is within the scope of the official's duties even if performance of the specific act is not legally required. Here, Michael does not have a specific duty to watch Ivan's offices since he makes his rounds without paying attention to Ivan's suite. However, the legal duty rule is applicable here because monitoring Ivan's offices is within the scope of Michael's duty as the building's security guard.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 2
Ivan is a Wall Street executive who has a suite of offices on the twentieth floor of the New York Stock Exchange building in New York City. Michael is the general supervisor for Gotham Security, Inc., the security company that guards and monitors the building. As part of Michael's job as supervisor, he makes rounds throughout the building each night at midnight, 2:00 A.M., 4:00 A.M., and 6:00 A.M. Although the rounds are thorough, Michael is not required to actually check each office in the building. Ivan does not like the fact that his suite of offices is not looked in on every night and he promises Michael that if Michael actually goes into the offices every time he makes rounds and makes sure that the drawers to all the desks and file cabinets are locked and the computers are closed, Ivan will give Michael free investment advice. For the next several weeks, Michael looks in on Ivan's offices during each of his rounds. However, when Michael asks Ivan for investment advice, Ivan refuses to give it to him. If Michael sues Ivan for breach of contract, he will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct The legal duty rule cannot be avoided by a bargain that only pretends to call for performance outside the scope of an official's duties. The difference between the official duties and the promised performance must be material. Here, even though Michael can satisfy his official duties without even going to Ivan's office, his promise to enter the office and do a more extensive security check is only a subtle deviation from his official duties. Therefore, the contract is unenforceable and C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! The legal duty rule cannot be avoided by a bargain that only pretends to call for performance outside the scope of an official's duties. The difference between the official duties and the promised performance must be material. Here, even though Michael can satisfy his official duties without even going to Ivan's office, his promise to enter the office and do a more extensive security check is only a subtle deviation from his official duties. Therefore, the contract is unenforceable and C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
After a long game of tennis at the gym, Pete and Andre decide to go to the pool and cool off. Andre doesn't know how to swim but he likes to wade into the shallow water. Pete knows that Andre can't swim bud he decides to play a joke on Andre. While Andre is standing at the deep end of the pool, Pete pushes Andre into the water. Andre is having trouble keeping his head above the water and he begs Pete to help him out of the pool. Pete tells Andre that he will help him but only if Andre promises to give Pete $1,000. Afraid that he is going to drown, Andre agrees. After Pete helps Andre out of the pool, Andre refuses to give Pete the money. If Pete sues Andre to enforce their agreement, he will probably:
Correct Although there is no common law duty of rescue, a person that puts another person in harm's way has a duty to rescue that person. Here, Pete put Andre in harms way so, at the time Andre and Pete made their agreement, Pete had a pre-existing duty to help Andre. That being the case, the agreement only required Pete to do what he had a duty to do anyway. Therefore, the agreement is unenforceable and A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Although there is no common law duty of rescue, a person that puts another person in harm's way has a duty to rescue that person. Here, Pete put Andre in harms way so, at the time Andre and Pete made their agreement, Pete had a pre-existing duty to help Andre. That being the case, the agreement only required Pete to do what he had a duty to do anyway. Therefore, the agreement is unenforceable and A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
Tucker is a car buff and he has designed a special model car that he commissions General Motors to build for him. G.M. agrees to build the car to Tucker's specifications, including Tucker's insistence that the car be painted white with blue trim, in exchange for $500,000. G.M begins construction on the car but, before they finish the job, they inform Tucker that they will not complete construction unless Tucker agrees to pay G.M. an additional $100,000. Tucker agrees and G.M. finishes the car. When Tucker takes possession of the car, he refuses to pay the extra $100,000. If G.M. sues Tucker for the money, Tucker will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. Here, all G.M. did was promise to do the exact same thing they were supposed to do under the first contract. That being the case, their promise was not consideration for Tucker's promise to pay them the extra $100,000 and so Tucker's promise to pay the extra money is unenforceable. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. Here, all G.M. did was promise to do the exact same thing they were supposed to do under the first contract. That being the case, their promise was not consideration for Tucker's promise to pay them the extra $100,000 and so Tucker's promise to pay the extra money is unenforceable. Therefore, C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 5
Tucker is a car buff and he has designed a special model car that he commissions General Motors to build for him. G.M. agrees to build the car to Tucker's specifications, including Tucker's insistence that the car be painted white with blue trim, in exchange for $500,000. G.M. begins construction on the car but, before they finish the job, Tucker informs them that he will pay an additional $100,000 for G.M. to paint the car white with a black trim instead of a blue trim. G.M. agrees and finishes the car. When Tucker takes possession of the car, he refuses to pay the extra $100,000. If G.M. sues Tucker for the money, Tucker will probably:
Correct Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the promise to pay more money is matched with a promise for different performance. Here, Tucker's promise to pay more money was matched with G.M.'s promise to render different performance (painting the car with a black trim instead of a blue trim). Therefore, Tucker's promise to pay more money is enforceable and A is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the promise to pay more money is matched with a promise for different performance. Here, Tucker's promise to pay more money was matched with G.M.'s promise to render different performance (painting the car with a black trim instead of a blue trim). Therefore, Tucker's promise to pay more money is enforceable and A is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 6
Tucker is a race car buff whose life long dream is to race a car in the Daytona 500. Tucker has designed a special model race car that he commissions General Motors to build for him. G.M. agrees to build the car to Tucker's specifications in exchange for $500,000. One of Tucker's specifications is that the car be finished by April 1st so that Tucker can enter it into the Daytona 500, which will be held on May 1st. G.M. begins construction on the car but, before they finish the job, Tucker's father, who is anxious for his son to be able to fulfill his dream, informs G.M. that he will pay an additional $100,000 for G.M to finish the car by April 1st. G.M agrees and finishes the car. When Tucker takes possession of the car, his father refuses to pay the extra $100,000. If G.M. sues Tucker's father for the money, they will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the pre-existing duty is owed to one person and a third party makes a promise based on that duty. Essentially, the legal duty rule does not apply if the pre-existing duty is owed to someone other than the person who makes the new promise. Here, G.M has a preexisting duty to Tucker but not to Tucker's father. Therefore Tucker's father's promise to G.M is enforceable and C is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the pre-existing duty is owed to one person and a third party makes a promise based on that duty. Essentially, the legal duty rule does not apply if the pre-existing duty is owed to someone other than the person who makes the new promise. Here, G.M has a preexisting duty to Tucker but not to Tucker's father. Therefore Tucker's father's promise to G.M is enforceable and C is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 7
American Beef is a meat packing company that gets a lot of its meat from England. On January 1st, 2003, American and English Beef, an English meat packing company, enter into a contract where American agrees to buy ten thousand pounds of beef from English for $4 per pound, to be delivered to American on February 1st. On January 10th, the United States government lifts a three year old ban on importing English beef. The ban had been put in place because of Mad Cow Disease fears. On January 15th, American agrees to pay $6 per pound for the ten thousand pounds of beef it had ordered from English. When the beef arrives, American pays $4 per pound and refuses to pay English the other $2 per pound. If English sues American, they will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the promisor has a valid defense for not fulfilling the original contract. Here, American had a valid defense in not fulfilling the original contract because the contract was illegal (it was illegal to import beef from England when the contract was made). American and English were not obligated to each other under the illegal contract. Therefore, the offer to buy ten thousand pounds of meat at $6 per pound was a promise under the new contract and not an agreement by American to pay more for the same performance by English. That being the case, the contract is enforceable and B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the promisor has a valid defense for not fulfilling the original contract. Here, American had a valid defense in not fulfilling the original contract because the contract was illegal (it was illegal to import beef from England when the contract was made). American and English were not obligated to each other under the illegal contract. Therefore, the offer to buy ten thousand pounds of meat at $6 per pound was a promise under the new contract and not an agreement by American to pay more for the same performance by English. That being the case, the contract is enforceable and B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 8
American Beef is a meat packing company that gets a lot of its meat from England. On January 1st, 2003, American and English Beef, an English meat packing company, enter into a contract where American agrees to buy ten thousand pounds of beef from English for $4 per pound, to be delivered to American on February 1st. On January 10th, the English government announces that there has been an outbreak of Mad Cow Disease that has infected 40% of the meat packing industry. Because of the shortage of healthy cows, English has a very difficult time filling its customers' orders. As a result, English must raise its prices to $9 per pound in order to stay in business. American and English modify their contract so that English will send American ten thousand pounds of beef and American will pay $9 per pound. After English sends the beef, American pays $4 per pound and refuses to pay the other $5 per pound. If English sues American, they will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where there is a "fair and equitable modification in light of unanticipated circumstances." Here, even though American is agreeing to pay more money for the same performance, this modification is based on the unanticipated increase in the price of British beef and is a fair modification in light of the new circumstances. Therefore the modification is enforceable, American will have to pay the extra $5 per pound and D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where there is a "fair and equitable modification in light of unanticipated circumstances." Here, even though American is agreeing to pay more money for the same performance, this modification is based on the unanticipated increase in the price of British beef and is a fair modification in light of the new circumstances. Therefore the modification is enforceable, American will have to pay the extra $5 per pound and D is the correct answer.
Question 9
Tony and Cornelius decide to open a cereal factory in their hometown in Michigan. On March 1st, 2003, Tony and Cornelius hire Bob the Builder to build the factory. They tell Bob that they would like to open the business on January 1st, 2004 and that they will pay him $5 million to have the factory finished by December 15th, 2003. Bob begins construction but, on April 1st, he tells Tony and Cornelius that he will not finish the factory on time unless they agree to pay him an additional $2 million. At this point, it is still early enough in the project that Tony and Cornelius could find another contractor if they chose to and still have the factory finished by December 15th, 2003. However, they decide to keep Bob and they pay him the extra $2 million he is demanding. Bob finishes the factory by December 15th, as the contract required him to do. On December 16th, Tony and Cornelius sue Bob to get the extra $2 million back, arguing that there was no new consideration for their giving Bob the extra money since they received the same service that they had already contracted for in return. Tony and Cornelius will win this suit and recover the extra $2 million dollars they paid Bob:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the contract has been performed already. Once a contract is fully performed, the legal duty rule has no application and the promisor cannot recover the extra money paid. However, if the new promise is made under economic duress he can recover the payments that are in excess of the original contract agreement. Here, Tony and Cornelius were not under any economic duress either at the time they made the new agreement or at the time of payment. Therefore, they cannot recover the extra money they paid Bob and FALSE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the contract has been performed already. Once a contract is fully performed, the legal duty rule has no application and the promisor cannot recover the extra money paid. However, if the new promise is made under economic duress he can recover the payments that are in excess of the original contract agreement. Here, Tony and Cornelius were not under any economic duress either at the time they made the new agreement or at the time of payment. Therefore, they cannot recover the extra money they paid Bob and FALSE is the correct answer.
Question 10
Tony and Cornelius decide to open a cereal factory in their hometown in Michigan. On March 1st, 2003, Tony and Cornelius hire Bob the Builder to build the factory. They tell Bob that they would like to open the business on January 1st, 2004 and that they will pay him $5 million to have the factory finished by December 15th, 2003. Bob begins construction but, on November 15th, he tells Tony and Cornelius that he will not finish the factory on time unless they agree to pay him an additional $2 million. At this point, it will be prohibitively expensive to find another contractor and still have the factory finished by December 15th, 2003. Further, any delay in opening the factory will cost Tony and Cornelius hundreds of thousands of dollars. Having no choice, Tony and Cornelius pay Bob the extra $2 million he is demanding. Bob finishes the factory by December 15th, as the contract required him to do. On December 16th, Tony and Cornelius sue Bob to get the extra $2 million back, arguing that there was no new consideration for their giving Bob the extra money since they received the same service that they had already contracted for in return. Tony and Cornelius will win this suit and recover the extra $2 million dollars they paid Bob:
Correct Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the contract has been performed already. Once a contract is fully performed, the legal duty rule has no application and the promisor cannot recover the extra money paid. However, if the new promise is made under economic duress he can recover the payments that are in excess of the original contract agreement. Here, Tony and Cornelius were under economic duress when they made the new agreement. Therefore, they can recover the extra money they paid Bob and TRUE is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Where the legal duty rule applies to contractual duties, the general rule is that a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual duty, or the actual performance of that duty, is not consideration for a new promise. One exception to this rule is where the contract has been performed already. Once a contract is fully performed, the legal duty rule has no application and the promisor cannot recover the extra money paid. However, if the new promise is made under economic duress he can recover the payments that are in excess of the original contract agreement. Here, Tony and Cornelius were under economic duress when they made the new agreement. Therefore, they can recover the extra money they paid Bob and TRUE is the correct answer.