SMC Business Law Sec 1059 Week 3 Chp. 6 Quiz (2015)

Week 3 Chp. 6 QuizGrading SummaryGrade Details – All QuestionsQuestion 1. Question : In the primary case of Trademark Properties v. A & E Television Networks: Student Answer: A & E Television Networks was the offeror The statement by Nordlander (the director of programming for the Defendant), objectively demonstrated an intent to accept the offer by saying, “Okay, okay, I get it.” Both the jury and the appellate court concluded that the plaintiff demonstrated – by it’s conduct – that the Defendant accepted the offer The jury applied the Objective Theory of Contract Intent to decide whether a contract had been formed C & DQuestion 2. Question : In the primary case of Pride v. Lewis, the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Pride, by finding that Lewis had breached the contract to purchase the property owned by Pride. However, the decision was appealed and the appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision. The appellate court decided: Student Answer: Lewis indeed offered to buy Pride’s property Pride made a counter-offer to the offer tendered by Lewis Lewis neither said or did anything in response to the counter-offer and by remaining silent did not accept it No contract had ever been formed between the parties All of the aboveQuestion 3. Question : In the case of Okosa v. Hall and New Jersey Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange (NJCURE): Student Answer: NJCURE, as master of the offer, required that the acceptance sent by Okosa be actually received by 12:01 a.m. on March 16, 1994 The Mail Box Rule was applied by the appellate court and the summary judgment in favor of the defendants was reversed According to the Mail Box Rule as applied to this case, a contract was formed between the defendant (NJCURE) and the plaintiff Okosa when the premium payment was mailed B & C None of the aboveQuestion 4. Question : In the case of McGurn v. Bell Microproducts, Inc Student Answer: According to the District Court, McGurn did not accept the final offer made by Defendant Bell Microproducts, Inc. According to the District Court,McGurn’s response to the final offer by Bell Microproducts was a counter-offer The summary judgment in favor of McGurn was based on the ruling that a contract had been formed and that the defendant breached it by firing McGurn prior to the lapse of 24 months The appellate court found that the summary judgment ruling was incorrect and it remanded the case back to the trial court All of the aboveQuestion 5. Question : Identify which of the underlying, if any, would cancel out the “mail box rule”: Student Answer: If the offeror insists in her offer that the acceptance is valid only when received If the offeree does not properly address the acceptance and also uses insufficient postage If the offeree’s response is a post-acceptance rejection If the offeree’s response is a post- rejection acceptance All of the aboveQuestion 6. Question : On Thursday, Trista receives a letter from Charlie in which he offers to sell her a diamond ring. The letter states: “if you choose to accept, you must do so prior to 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.” Trista had a telegram of acceptance dispatched before 2:00 p.m. on Friday. The telegram is delivered to Charlie’s home at 2:15 p.m. Do Trista and Charlie have a contract? Student Answer: No, because Trista’s supposed acceptance was untimely Yes, because Trista dispatched the telegram prior to 2:00 p.m (The Mail Box Rule still applied. Charlie did not stipulate that the acceptance had to be received. He merely stated that it had to occur prior to 2:00 p.m., which Trista achieved by dispatching it before this time.) No, because Trista’s use of a telegram was not a proper method to accept an offer Yes, unless Charlie is not home to receive the telegramQuestion 7. Question : A “grumbling acceptance” : Student Answer: Is valid acceptance if it meets all the other tests for a good acceptance Is a rejection of the offer Makes the offer unconscionable Is treated as a counter-offerQuestion 8. Question : If an offer says that the offeree must accept by registered letter, the offeree can accept by a regular letter, but the acceptance is only effective when it is received by the offeror. Do not consider the UCC or the Restatement Second of Contracts. Student Answer: True False Question 9. Question : On September 27, Summers sent Fox a letter offering to sell Fox a vacation home for $150,000. On October 2, Fox replied by mail agreeing to buy the home for $145,000. Summers did not reply to Fox. The response by Fox is a (an): Student Answer: Acceptance Grumbling acceptance Inquiry Counter-offerQuestion 10. Question : In its offer to Glassrobots Oy, the plaintiff, Standard Bent Glass Corporation (problem case #4), expressly limited acceptance to its own terms. Student Answer: True False Question 11. Question : On November 1, Yost sent a telegram to Zen offering to sell a rare vase. The offer required that Zen’s acceptance be by telegram and be sent on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 2. On November 2 at 3:00 p.m., Zen sent an acceptance by overnight mail. It did not reach Yost until November 5. Yost refused to complete the sale to Zen. Is there an enforceable contract? Student Answer: Yes, because the acceptance was made within the time specified Yes, because the acceptance was effective when sent No, because Zen did not accept by telegram (In this case, Yost – the master of the offer – dictated how it had to be accepted and Zen did not comply. The offer required that Zen use telegram and this did not occur!) None of the aboveQuestion 12. Question : The Battle of Forms provisions of the UCC recognizes that parties – in today’s business world – often use their own forms and that the respective forms of the offeror and offeree frequently differ in their terms. The Code provides flexibility under these circumstances by allowing the parties to begin performance expediently rather than wait for all contract details to be ironed out and resolved. Student Answer: True False Question 13. Question : Buyer bought computer software in a shrink-wrapped box that did not list the conditions of purchase. When Buyer inserted the CD disc in the CPU drive, a document splashed on the computer monitor entitled TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE AND USE. The terms and conditions of purchase were set forth in a straightforward manner . Buyer then clicked on the words “I ACCEPT” at the bottom of the form. Buyer did not read the form prior to clicking the “I ACCEPT” link. Student Answer: Buyer would not be held to the terms he did not read Buyer, according to the above facts, had actual knowledge of the terms Buyer, according to the above facts, had constructive knowledge of the terms A reasonable person would have read and understood the terms Both C & DQuestion 14. Question : Able Co. entered into a contract with Baker Co. for the sale of goods. Both parties are merchants under the UCC. Each party used its own form as an offer and acceptance. On the back of each form there were minor terms that caused the forms to conflict with each other. What is result of these minor differences as they pertain to the agreement between these parties? Student Answer: There is no contract here because there is no “mirror image” between the offer and the acceptance There is no contract here because there is no “meeting of the minds” A contract does result, and it includes Baker’s terms A contract does result, and it includes the terms agreed upon plus gap-fillers from the UCC.Question 15. Question : Ian offered to sell his car to Beth for $5,000. Beth responded by saying “will you put new seat covers on the car at that price?” Beth’s response was: Student Answer: A counter-offer. A rejection. A conditional acceptance of A’s offer. None of the above. (This is the correct answer. The response was an inquiry and it did not affect Ian’s offer.)Question 16. Question : In problem case # 9, a contract for insurance covering the Jaguar was created the moment that Casto’s check was mailed to State Farm Mutal Insurance (SFMI) in the pre-addressed envelope provided by SFMI. Student Answer: True False Question 17. Question : On April 2, 2012, Bonn & Co., CPAs, mailed Marble Corp. a signed proposal to perform certain accounting services for Marble provided Marble accepts the proposal by April 30, 2012. Under the circumstances: Student Answer: If Marble chooses to use the telephone to accept the offer and does so prior to April 30,2012, no contract will be formed between the parties because the mail was not used Marble must accept the Bonn proposal in writing in order to form a contract A contract will be formed between the parties if Marble mails an acceptance to Bonn on April 29, 2012, even if it is not received by Bonn until May 3, 2012 Bonn may not withdraw its proposal prior to May 1, 2012Question 18. Question : In problem case #5 (Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.), (NCC), the court held that by clicking on the button labeled “Download,” the plaintiffs were bound by all terms therein including the arbitration clause even if they did not read it. Student Answer: True False Question 19. Question : Which of the following is an acceptance? Student Answer: Silence A “grumbling acceptance” An inquiry regarding the terms All of the aboveQuestion 20. Question : In problem case #5 (Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.), (NCC): Student Answer: The plaintiffs had actual notice of each and every term of the proposed contract The plaintiffs had constructive notice of each and every term of the proposed contract Both A & B The plaintiffs were not found to have constructive knowledge of the arbitration clause included by Netscape. None of the above