Part I: True/False, explain if your answer is false:

1. When Olga asks Sven if he wishes to sell his Harley motorcycle, he replies that he
would not sell it "for less than $2,000." Olga replies, "I accept," and hands him
$2,000. A contract exists.
F => Sven's statement is like saying "open to offers above $2,000," not a fixed
price. It invites negotiation, not a guaranteed sale at $2,000. So, no firm offer
and acceptance exist, meaning no contract.

2. April put an advertisement in the newspaper advertising the sale of her computer for
$500. Simultaneously, six people responded to the ad by mail with formal written
acceptances. April is bound on six contracts to sell her computer for $500.
F => In contract law, the general rule is that an advertisement is considered an
invitation to treat rather than a binding offer. When April placed an advertisement in
the newspaper advertising the sale of her computer for $500, it is typically seen as an
invitation for potential buyers to make an offer. The six responses by mail with formal
written acceptances are considered offers from the buyers.
April, as the seller, has the discretion to accept or reject these individual offers.
Therefore, until April accepts one of the offers explicitly, there is no binding contract.
The invitation to treat through the advertisement allows April the freedom to choose
which, if any, of the offers she wants to accept.

3. On Monday, Harry mails an offer to Sally to sell his guitar for $50. Monday night when
jamming with his buddies, he decides he will really miss his old guitar and has
second thoughts about selling it. Tuesday morning he puts a revocation in the mail
informing Sally he has changed his mind and the guitar is no longer for sale. The
revocation is effective upon dispatch.
F => In contract law, an offer can generally be revoked at any time before it is
accepted. However, the revocation must reach the offeree before or at the same time
as the offer. In this scenario, since Harry mails the revocation on Tuesday morning
after sending the offer on Monday, Sally may have already received the offer before
the revocation.
If Sally receives the offer before the revocation, the offer is effective, and a contract
could potentially be formed if Sally accepts the offer. If Sally receives the revocation
before or at the same time as the offer, then the offer is effectively revoked, and no
contract is formed. The key is the timing of when the offeree (Sally) receives the offer
and the revocation.
4. Generally, silence is not acceptance.
T => . In contract law, silence is generally not considered acceptance. For a contract
to be formed, there must be a clear and unequivocal acceptance of an offer by the
offeree. Silence, in most cases, does not indicate a positive response or a clear
intention to accept the offer. Active communication or conduct that explicitly
communicates acceptance is typically required for a valid contract to be established.
If the offeree remains silent, it is generally not considered as a valid acceptance of the
offer.
5. Agreeing not to open a competing business could be consideration.
T => In contract law, consideration is something of value exchanged between parties
to a contract. It could be a promise, a performance, or a forbearance from doing
something. Agreeing not to open a competing business is a form of forbearance,
where one party refrains from engaging in a certain activity.
For example, if Party A agrees not to open a competing business in a specified area,
and Party B agrees to provide certain benefits or payments in return, there is
consideration on both sides. The forbearance from competing by Party A is the
consideration that supports the promises made in the contract, making it a valid and
enforceable agreement.

6. When Randy accepted a job with Buren Construction, Randy signed the following
agreement, "Upon termination of my employment with Buren Construction, I agree
never to work for another employer as an electrician." If Randy resigns from Buren
Construction, this agreement would be upheld under the theory of freedom of
contract.
F => While contracts are generally based on the principle of freedom of contract, there
are legal limitations, especially when it comes to restrictive covenants in employment
agreements. Non-compete agreements, like the one Randy signed, are subject to
scrutiny and may be limited by law.
Courts often assess the reasonableness of such agreements in terms of duration,
geographic scope, and the nature of the restriction. If the non-compete agreement is
deemed overly restrictive or against public policy, it may not be upheld. In many
jurisdictions, there needs to be a reasonable balance between protecting the
employer's legitimate business interests and allowing the employee the freedom to
pursue their profession after leaving the company.

7. Megan, age 17, enters a contract to purchase a used car for $2,500 from an
acquaintance, Brian. If Brian then receives an offer of $2,650 for the car, he has the
right to cancel agreement with Megan, since she lacked capacity to enter a binding
contract because of her age.
T => In general, minors (individuals under the age of 18) are considered to have
limited capacity to enter into contracts. However, there are exceptions to this rule.
One such exception is for contracts that involve necessities, such as food, clothing,
and shelter. These contracts are generally enforceable against minors.
In the case of purchasing a used car, it is unlikely to be considered a necessity.
Therefore, Megan's age may affect her capacity to enter into a binding contract. Brian
may have the right to cancel the agreement if he receives a higher offer for the
car.However, it's important to note that contract laws can vary depending on the
jurisdiction. It is advisable for Megan and Brian to consult with a legal professional to
understand the specific laws and regulations that apply to their situation.

8. Minors (persons under age 18) or persons who, by reason of mental illness or defect,
are unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transactions create
voidable contracts.
T => Minors (persons under the age of 18) and individuals who, due to mental illness
or defect, are unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transactions,
are considered to have limited capacity to enter into contracts. Contracts entered into
by such individuals are generally categorized as voidable.
The concept of voidable contracts means that the contract is valid unless the party
with diminished capacity chooses to void it. In the case of minors or mentally
incapacitated individuals, they have the option to affirm or disaffirm the contract once
they regain capacity or reach the age of majority. This legal protection is in place to
safeguard individuals who may not have the full capacity to make informed decisions
in contractual matters.

9. A plaintiff suing for fraud generally has the option of rescinding the contract or suing
for damages.
T => In a fraud claim, the plaintiff typically has the option to choose between
rescinding the contract or seeking damages. Rescinding the contract means the
plaintiff can choose to void the contract as if it never existed, returning both parties to
their pre-contractual positions. On the other hand, the plaintiff may also choose to
sue for damages, seeking financial compensation for any losses suffered as a result
of the fraudulent misrepresentation.
The specific remedies available to the plaintiff may depend on the laws of the
jurisdiction and the circumstances of the fraud. Consulting with a legal professional
is advisable for personalized guidance in such cases.

10. A seller of a farm realizes that the potential buyer has a mistaken understanding
about the deed. If the seller fails to correct the misunderstanding, there is no
misrepresentation. A misrepresentation occurs only by an actual statement.
F => Misrepresentation can occur not only through explicit statements but also
through actions or failures to disclose information, especially when there is a duty to
disclose. Deliberately allowing a mistaken understanding without correction can be
considered a form of misrepresentation.

Scenario 1
Mandy went into a furniture shop and saw a price label on an antique clock for £325. She
took the clock to the checkout, but the cashier told her that the label was misprinted and
should read £625. Mandy maintained that she only must pay £325. How would you describe
the price on the price label in terms of contract law? Advise Mandy.
=> Answer: In contract law, the price label on the antique clock with £325 would generally
be considered an invitation to treat rather than a binding offer. An invitation to treat is an
indication of a willingness to negotiate or receive offers but is not a final, binding commitment
to sell at that price.
However, once Mandy took the clock to the checkout, there might be an argument that a
contract was formed if the cashier accepted her offer to purchase at the £325 price. If the
cashier informs Mandy that the label was misprinted, it could be seen as a correction of an
obvious mistake. In such cases, the shop may have the right to withdraw the item from sale
or request the correct price.
If Mandy insists on the £325 price, she may face resistance, and the shop might not be
obligated to sell at the lower amount. It's advisable for Mandy to discuss the situation with
the shop manager or seek legal advice to understand her rights in this specific scenario and
jurisdiction.
Scenario 2
Mandy was late for her work so she asked Tommy, her boyfriend, to buy a burger from
Violet, the owner of Maya Cafe for her consumption. After taking a few bites, Mandy
discovered the remains of a decomposed lizard inside the burger. Mandy became seriously
ill and sued Violet, who argued that there was no contract between her and Mandy, she
owed Mandy no duty of care and so was not liable to her. Advise Mandy.
=> In this scenario, there may indeed be a basis for legal action on Mandy's part. While there
may not be a formal written contract, a transaction has taken place where Mandy, through
her boyfriend Tommy, purchased a burger from Violet's cafe. This transaction establishes an
implied contract, where both parties have certain responsibilities.
Violet, as the seller of the burger, has a duty to provide goods that are fit for consumption.
Discovering a decomposed lizard inside the burger would likely be considered a breach of
that duty, and it could lead to a claim of negligence. In many jurisdictions, sellers are
obligated to ensure that the products they sell are safe for consumption, and failure to meet
this obligation may result in liability.
Mandy may have grounds to sue Violet for damages resulting from the illness caused by the
contaminated burger. It's advisable for Mandy to consult with a legal professional to assess
the specific details of the case and the applicable laws in their jurisdiction.

Scenario 3
Preferred Contractors was a general contractor and owner of a condominium complex which
was under construction. Barrett, a subcontractor, had been hired by Henderson Plumbing,
another subcontractor, to help it complete the plumbing work on the project. When
Henderson began using shoddy installation procedures and fell behind the scheduled
completion time for the project, Preferred Contractors urged Barrett to correct Henderson's
mistakes and to finish the job. Barrett refused to continue until he knew who would pay him,
since he feared Henderson's financial position was shaky. Nonetheless, Preferred
Contractors' job superintendent told Barrett to go ahead even if Barrett and Preferred
Contractors had no contract because "he would use his influence to try to help Barrett get his
money." Barrett finished the work and sent a $7,500 bill to Henderson. The bill was never
paid. When Barrett later sent the bill to Preferred Contractors, these facts emerged:
Preferred Contractors told him that due to Barrett's failure to notify Preferred Contractors
promptly of Henderson's non-payment, Preferred Contractors had already paid Henderson in
full and therefore would not pay twice for the work. Discuss the best theory of recovery
Barrett may argue.
=> In this scenario, Barrett has a strong case for recovery based on the legal theory of
quantum meruit. It allows a plaintiff to recover the reasonable value of services rendered,
even in the absence of a formal contract, when the defendant has benefited from those
services.
● Services rendered: Barrett demonstrably completed the plumbing work on the
project.
 ● Benefit to the defendant: Preferred Contractors undeniably benefited by having the
plumbing work finished, as it was necessary for the completion of the condominium
complex.
● Reasonable value: As evidenced by the $7,500 bill sent to Henderson (assuming it
reflects the fair market value of the work), Barrett has a basis for claiming reasonable
compensation.
● Unjust enrichment: If Preferred Contractors refuses to pay, they would be unjustly
enriched by keeping the benefit of Barrett's work without offering any compensation.
Additionally, Barrett could potentially argue:
Promissory estoppel: Even though there was no formal contract, Preferred Contractors'
superintendent's assurance to "use his influence" to help Barrett get paid could be seen as a
promise that induced Barrett to continue working, and now refusing to pay would be unfair.