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
After graduating from the ParalegalTech Institute and working for one of the most prestigious law firms in New York City, Mark decides that he would like to go to law school. Mark applies and is accepted to the New York City School of Law. The school agrees to lend Mark the $10,000 per year in tuition on the condition that he pay the $30,000 back within two years of his graduation. Mark graduates from Law School on June 1st, 2001 and he must pay back the $30,000 by June 1st, 2003. Mark does not have the $30,000 on June 1st, 2003 but on June 15th, 2003, he contacts the school and offers to pay $20,000 if the school agrees to accept the $20,000 in full satisfaction of Mark's debt. The school agrees and Mark sends them a check for $20,000. The day the school receives the check, they file suit against Mark for the other $10,000. The school will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Under the legal duty rule, a debtor's payment of a lesser amount is not consideration for the promise to accept the money in full discharge of the debt because, in paying the creditor any amount of money, the debtor is doing only what he has a pre-existing legal duty to do. As a result, after the debtor has paid the lesser amount, the creditor can sue for the rest of the money, despite the agreement to accept less money in full discharge of the debtor's obligation. Here, Mark had a preexisting duty to repay the whole $30,000 loan so repaying only part of the loan was not consideration for the school's promise to accept the partial repayment in full satisfaction of the debt. Therefore, D is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Under the legal duty rule, a debtor's payment of a lesser amount is not consideration for the promise to accept the money in full discharge of the debt because, in paying the creditor any amount of money, the debtor is doing only what he has a pre-existing legal duty to do. As a result, after the debtor has paid the lesser amount, the creditor can sue for the rest of the money, despite the agreement to accept less money in full discharge of the debtor's obligation. Here, Mark had a preexisting duty to repay the whole $30,000 loan so repaying only part of the loan was not consideration for the school's promise to accept the partial repayment in full satisfaction of the debt. Therefore, D is the correct answer.
Question 2
After graduating from the ParalegalTech Institute and working for one of the most prestigious law firms in New York City, Mark decides that he would like to go to law school. Mark applies and is accepted to the New York City School of Law. The school agrees to lend Mark the $10,000 per year in tuition on the condition that he pay the $30,000 back within two years of his graduation. Mark graduates from Law School on June 1st, 2001 and he must pay back the $30,000 by June 1st, 2003. On June 1st, 2002, Mark contacts the school and offers to pay $20,000 by January 1st, 2003 if the school agrees to accept the $20,000 in full satisfaction of Mark's debt. The school agrees and Mark sends them a check for $20,000. The day the school receives the check, they file suit against Mark for the other $10,000. The school will probably:
Correct Under the legal duty rule, a debtor's payment of a lesser amount is not consideration for the promise to accept the money in full discharge of the debt because, in paying the creditor any amount of money, the debtor is doing only what he has a pre-existing legal duty to do. One exception to this rule is where different performance is promised. In other words, if the debtor does something different from that which he is obligated to do, the creditor's promise will be considered enforceable. Here, Mark offered to pay $20,000 six months before the debt was due. This represents different performance than what was owed under the first agreement. Therefore, the agreement to accept $20,000 from Mark six month early in exchange for accepting the money in full discharge of the debt is binding and A is the correct answer
Incorrect! Under the legal duty rule, a debtor's payment of a lesser amount is not consideration for the promise to accept the money in full discharge of the debt because, in paying the creditor any amount of money, the debtor is doing only what he has a pre-existing legal duty to do. One exception to this rule is where different performance is promised. In other words, if the debtor does something different from that which he is obligated to do, the creditor's promise will be considered enforceable. Here, Mark offered to pay $20,000 six months before the debt was due. This represents different performance than what was owed under the first agreement. Therefore, the agreement to accept $20,000 from Mark six month early in exchange for accepting the money in full discharge of the debt is binding and A is the correct answer
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 3
After graduating from the ParalegalTech Institute and working for one of the most prestigious law firms in New York City, Mark decides that he would like to go to law school. Mark applies and is accepted to the New York City School of Law. Mark applies for a financial aid package to help pay the $10,000 per year in tuition and the school gives Mark a $30,000 package. Although the letter informing Mark of the financial aid package is not clear, Mark is under the impression that the $30,000 is a scholarship that he does not have to pay back. The school is under the impression that the $30,000 is a loan that must be paid back. Mark graduates from Law School on June 1st, 2001 and, on June 1st, 2003 he receives a letter from the school informing him that he must repay the $30,000. Mark refuses, maintaining that the $30,000 was a scholarship that did not have to be repaid. The school threatens to sue Mark for the money. Making an attempt to compromise, Mark offers to pay the school $15,000 if the school agrees to accept the money in full satisfaction of the debt they claim Mark owes them. The school agrees and Mark sends them a check for $15,000. The day the school receives the check, they file suit against Mark for the other $15,000. The school will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Under the legal duty rule, a debtor's payment of a lesser amount is not consideration for the promise to accept the money in full discharge of the debt because, in paying the creditor any amount of money, the debtor is doing only what he has a pre-existing legal duty to do. One exception to this rule is where there is an honest dispute as to whether or not the debtor actually owes the creditor any money. In these situations, payment by the debtor of a lesser amount than what the creditor claims the debtor owes him is consideration for a promise to discharge in full. Here, Mark and the school have an honest disagreement as to whether or not the $30,000 needs to be repaid. Therefore, the agreement to accept $15,000 in full discharge of the debt is binding and B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Under the legal duty rule, a debtor's payment of a lesser amount is not consideration for the promise to accept the money in full discharge of the debt because, in paying the creditor any amount of money, the debtor is doing only what he has a pre-existing legal duty to do. One exception to this rule is where there is an honest dispute as to whether or not the debtor actually owes the creditor any money. In these situations, payment by the debtor of a lesser amount than what the creditor claims the debtor owes him is consideration for a promise to discharge in full. Here, Mark and the school have an honest disagreement as to whether or not the $30,000 needs to be repaid. Therefore, the agreement to accept $15,000 in full discharge of the debt is binding and B is the correct answer.
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct
Incorrect!
Question 4
After graduating from the ParalegalTech Institute and working for one of the most prestigious law firms in New York City, Mark decides that he would like to go to law school. Mark applies and is accepted to the New York City School of Law. Mark applies for a financial aid package to help pay the $10,000 per year in tuition and the school gives Mark a $30,000 package. Although the letter informing Mark of the financial aid package is not clear, Mark is under the impression that $10,000 of the $30,000 is a scholarship that he does not have to pay back and the remaining $20,000 is a loan. The school is under the impression that the entire $30,000 is a loan that must be paid back. Mark graduates from Law School on June 1st, 2001 and, on June 1st, 2003 he receives a letter from the school informing him that he must repay the $30,000. Without talking with the school, Mark writes out a check for $20,000, writes "in full payment of the debt" on the front of the check and mails it to the school. The day the school receives the check, they cash it and file suit against Mark for the remaining $10,000 of their claim. The school will probably:
Correct
Incorrect!
Correct Under the common law, the general rule was that if the creditor cashed the full payment check, the entire debt was discharged so long as there was a good faith dispute concerning how much money the debtor actually owed and the creditor had reasonable notice that the check was a "full payment" check. Under the U.C.C., the general rule is that if Louise cashed the "full payment" check, the entire claim is discharged provided that, 1) the check is given in good faith and as full satisfaction of the claim 2) the check either says on it or comes with an accompanying writing that says that the check is a "full payment" check, and 3) the amount of the claim is the subject of an honest dispute. Here, Mark wrote the check in good faith (he really believes that he only owes $20,000), the check clearly states "in full payment of the debt" on it, and the amount of the claim is the subject of an honest dispute. Therefore, cashing the check discharged the school's claim for the remaining $10,000 and, therefore, B is the correct answer.
Incorrect! Under the common law, the general rule was that if the creditor cashed the full payment check, the entire debt was discharged so long as there was a good faith dispute concerning how much money the debtor actually owed and the creditor had reasonable notice that the check was a "full payment" check. Under the U.C.C., the general rule is that if Louise cashed the "full payment" check, the entire claim is discharged provided that, 1) the check is given in good faith and as full satisfaction of the claim 2) the check either says on it or comes with an accompanying writing that says that the check is a "full payment" check, and 3) the amount of the claim is the subject of an honest dispute. Here, Mark wrote the check in good faith (he really believes that he only owes $20,000), the check clearly states "in full payment of the debt" on it, and the amount of the claim is the subject of an honest dispute. Therefore, cashing the check discharged the school's claim for the remaining $10,000 and, therefore, B is the correct answer.