BLAW 234 Task-Based Simulations

Party S feels a moral obligation because Party F let S stay in his place for free when S attended college. S now promises to pay F for the past kindness.

B- One of the parties has NOT given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract . The promise, agreement, or transaction is generally NOT enforceable.

F agrees to deliver all of the sugar that Company S will need in her business for the following year. S agrees to purchase it at the market price.

A- Both parties have given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract.

F does not smoke for one year pursuant to S's agreement to pay F $200 if she does not smoke for one year.

A- Both parties have given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract.

F dies leaving a valid will which will give S $100,000.

C- One of the parties has NOT given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract. However, the promise, agreement, or transaction IS generally enforceable.

F is an auditor of XYZ Company. S is a potential investor of XYZ and offers to pay F $1,000 if F performs a professional, quality audit of XYZ Company. The $1000 is in addition to the fee F will get from XYZ. F does perform a professional, quality audit.

B- One of the parties has NOT given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract . The promise, agreement, or transaction is generally NOT enforceable.

F had agreed, in writing, to work for S for five years for $100,000 per year. After two years, F asks for a 20% raise. S first agrees then later changes his mind. F, while not agreeing to additional duties or changing in his position , wants to enforce the raise in salary.

B- One of the parties has NOT given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract . The promise, agreement, or transaction is generally NOT enforceable.

S promised to pay F $1,000 if he crosses the Golden Gate Bridge on his hands and knees. F does so.

A- Both parties have given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract.

F promised to pay S $200 for a computer worth $2,000. S agreed to the deal.

A- Both parties have given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract.

F agreed to purchase all of the parts from S that S can produce in her business for the next six months. A also agreed.

A- Both parties have given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract.

S agreed to accept $1,000 from F for a $1,500 debt that is not disputed. S now wants the additional $500. Focus on the agreement to accept the lesser amount.

B- One of the parties has NOT given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract . The promise, agreement, or transaction is generally NOT enforceable.

A agreed to accept $1,000 from F for a debt that S claims is $1,500 but F in good faith claims is $800. F agreed to the $1,000 initially, then decides he will pay only $800. Focus on the enforceability of the agreement for $1,000.

A- Both parties have given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract.

S agreed to donate $100 to F, a public charity.

C- One of the parties has NOT given consideration legally sufficient to support a contract. However, the promise, agreement, or transaction IS generally enforceable.

Blake's December 15 offer had to be in writing to be a legitimate offer.

FALSE- A contractual relationship does not exist between Blake and Reach.

Reach's December 20 fax was an improper method of acceptance.

FALSE- A contractual relationship does not exist between Blake and Reach.

Reach's December 20 fax was effective when sent.

FALSE- A contractual relationship does not exist between Blake and Reach.

Reach's acceptance was invalid because it was received after December 20.

FALSE- A contractual relationship does not exist between Blake and Reach.

Blake's receipt of Reach's acceptance created a voidable contract.

FALSE- A contractual relationship does not exist between Blake and Reach.

If Reach had rejected the original offer by telephone on December 17, he could not validly accept the offer later.

TRUE- A contractual relationship DOES exist between Blake and Reach.

Reach's December 20 fax was a counteroffer.

TRUE- A contractual relationship DOES exist between Blake and Reach.