Question 1

Which of the following is an offer as opposed to an invitation to treat?

Accepted Answer

A)  An ad in a real-estate paper: "Best offer in Vancouver! 3-bedroom home in Kitsilano for only $850,000!" 
B)  A sweater displayed in the window of a shop with the price tag attached and showing. 
C)  A notice in the Toronto Star: "I will pay $100 to whoever finds and returns my lost female calico cat which answers to the name Marx." 
D)  The display of goods on the shelves of Costco. 
E)  A notice in the catalogue from the gift shop of the Edmonton Aquarium: "15% off the price of all jewellery until January." 
A)  An ad in a real-estate paper: "Best offer in Vancouver! 3-bedroom home in Kitsilano for only $850,000!" 
B)  A sweater displayed in the window of a shop with the price tag attached and showing. 
C)  A notice in the Toronto Star: "I will pay $100 to whoever finds and returns my lost female calico cat which answers to the name Marx." 
D)  The display of goods on the shelves of Costco. 
E)  A notice in the catalogue from the gift shop of the Edmonton Aquarium: "15% off the price of all jewellery until January." C

Question 2

Which of the following would best satisfy the requirements for a good legal offer?

Accepted Answer

A)  "I'll pay you at least $300 for your horse, Blackie, and even more if the horse is lucky." 
B)  "I'll drive you to Seattle on Saturday." 
C)  "The purchaser will pay $1000 for one of the seller's laser printers, the exact model to be determined at a later date." 
D)  "I'll give you $1 for your new green bike." 
E)  On a flyer placed on your windshield):"We have the best offer in town! A mint 1956 Chevrolet for $20,000." 
A)  "I'll pay you at least $300 for your horse, Blackie, and even more if the horse is lucky." 
B)  "I'll drive you to Seattle on Saturday." 
C)  "The purchaser will pay $1000 for one of the seller's laser printers, the exact model to be determined at a later date." 
D)  "I'll give you $1 for your new green bike." 
E)  On a flyer placed on your windshield):"We have the best offer in town! A mint 1956 Chevrolet for $20,000." D

Question 3

Although the contract called for the delivery of three manuals, the writer had put so much effort into the first two that the buyer agreed to pay the whole contract price, $3000, for the two instead of the three manuals. Which of the following stops the buyer from later suing the writer for breach of contract and demanding the completion of the third manual?

Accepted Answer

A)  Doctrine of quantum meruit 
B)  No consideration given by the writer 
C)  Promissory (equitable) estoppel 
D)  He only has to pay a reasonable price for the work done. 
E)  He doesn't have to pay anything because the job was not completed, and so he can even get back what he paid. 
A)  Doctrine of quantum meruit 
B)  No consideration given by the writer 
C)  Promissory (equitable) estoppel 
D)  He only has to pay a reasonable price for the work done. 
E)  He doesn't have to pay anything because the job was not completed, and so he can even get back what he paid. C

Question 4

Joe owed Sam $500. Two days after the money was due, he came to Sam saying he couldn't pay the $500, but if Sam would accept $300 as full payment, Joe would pay him right then and there. Sam agreed and the money was paid. Sam then sued for the other $200. Will he win?

Accepted Answer

Probably not (depends on the jurisdictio

Question 5

Even though a person promises to hold an offer open for a specified period of time, the offeror can revoke that offer before that time if he feels like it.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 6

Discuss the validity of online transactions and the related issues that arise in transacting business over the Internet.

Accepted Answer

Students should point out that online tr

Question 7

Which of the following shows accurate use of the doctrine of promissory (equitable) estoppel?

Accepted Answer

A)  Val told Jim that she would give him her printer. If she doesn't, Jim could use the doctrine to force her to do so. 
B)  George rented a video and watched it with Elaine. She thought the movie was great and said she'd pay half the rental price. George could use the doctrine to force her to pay as she promised. 
C)  This doctrine can be used by a plaintiff to enforce a written promise that has been signed and sealed (i.e., a seal has been affixed next to the signature of the promisor). 
D)  Bruce, a defendant, can use this doctrine as a defence against a plaintiff insisting on his full legal right when he had promised to forgive Bruce some of Bruce's legal obligation and Bruce relied on that promise. 
E)  Lam contracted to supply Jones with steel. Before the steel was delivered, Lam's supplier increased the price. Lam could use the doctrine to force Jones to pay more to Lam. 
A)  Val told Jim that she would give him her printer. If she doesn't, Jim could use the doctrine to force her to do so. 
B)  George rented a video and watched it with Elaine. She thought the movie was great and said she'd pay half the rental price. George could use the doctrine to force her to pay as she promised. 
C)  This doctrine can be used by a plaintiff to enforce a written promise that has been signed and sealed (i.e., a seal has been affixed next to the signature of the promisor). 
D)  Bruce, a defendant, can use this doctrine as a defence against a plaintiff insisting on his full legal right when he had promised to forgive Bruce some of Bruce's legal obligation and Bruce relied on that promise. 
E)  Lam contracted to supply Jones with steel. Before the steel was delivered, Lam's supplier increased the price. Lam could use the doctrine to force Jones to pay more to Lam.

Question 8

The ad in the Real Estate Weekly read: "Best offer in Toronto! 3-bedroom home in the Annex for only $700,000!" This is an example of which of the following?

Accepted Answer

A)  Invitation to treat 
B)  Legal offer 
C)  Gratuitous promise 
D)  Bilateral contract 
E)  Unilateral contract 
A)  Invitation to treat 
B)  Legal offer 
C)  Gratuitous promise 
D)  Bilateral contract 
E)  Unilateral contract

Question 9

Discuss the implications of a creditor agreeing to take less in full satisfaction of a debt.

Accepted Answer

Under the common law, a gratuitous debt

Question 10

If a person offers to hold his offer open for a period of time, he can still revoke it before that time if he changes his mind.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 11

Which of the following shows accurate use of the doctrine of promissory (equitable) estoppel?

Accepted Answer

A)  Ralph told Mary that he would give her his old boat. If he doesn't, Mary could use the doctrine to force him to do so. 
B)  If Nancy accidentally ran her car over her neighbour's bushes, she could use the doctrine as a defence. 
C)  This doctrine can be used by a plaintiff to enforce a written promise signed and sealed (i.e., a seal has been affixed next to the signature of the promisor). 
D)  A defendant can use this doctrine as a defence against a plaintiff insisting on his full legal right when he had promised to forgive the defendant some of his obligation. 
E)  If Ho requests services from Jones and there is no mention of price, if Ho doesn't pay Jones, this doctrine can be used to force Ho to pay a reasonable amount. 
A)  Ralph told Mary that he would give her his old boat. If he doesn't, Mary could use the doctrine to force him to do so. 
B)  If Nancy accidentally ran her car over her neighbour's bushes, she could use the doctrine as a defence. 
C)  This doctrine can be used by a plaintiff to enforce a written promise signed and sealed (i.e., a seal has been affixed next to the signature of the promisor). 
D)  A defendant can use this doctrine as a defence against a plaintiff insisting on his full legal right when he had promised to forgive the defendant some of his obligation. 
E)  If Ho requests services from Jones and there is no mention of price, if Ho doesn't pay Jones, this doctrine can be used to force Ho to pay a reasonable amount.

Question 12

Berman made a documentary on the life of musician Artie Shaw. Shaw's representative was cooperative and gave her permission to use certain songs if she received proper permission from the copyright holders. The cost of the film was funded by her own savings, a private investor, the Canada Council, the Ontario Arts Council, and deferred salaries and material costs. In March of 1987, the film won an Academy Award as the best feature documentary for 1986. In November of 1987, Shaw's lawyer contacted Berman's lawyer: "... This letter states that Artie Shaw has a 35% profit participation in the motion picture... ." Which of the following accurately sets out the legal position of the parties?

Accepted Answer

A)  Shaw has a right to this share because the movie is about him. 
B)  The court will imply an agreement to this effect between the parties. 
C)  Shaw has no claim since there was no such agreement. 
D)  A public celebrity has the right to prevent this kind of exploitation if Berman refuses this demand. 
E)  The court will award Shaw a reasonable profit because it is fair. 
A)  Shaw has a right to this share because the movie is about him. 
B)  The court will imply an agreement to this effect between the parties. 
C)  Shaw has no claim since there was no such agreement. 
D)  A public celebrity has the right to prevent this kind of exploitation if Berman refuses this demand. 
E)  The court will award Shaw a reasonable profit because it is fair.

Question 13

Mo drove his car to a shopping mall and parked it there to attend a movie. The place where he parked was designated as a one-hour parking space on a sign at the entrance where Mo drove in. There were many similar signs around the shopping mall stating that people were parking their cars at their own risk. This particular sign said that the time limit for parking there was one hour, and as a term of the contract anyone parking over this one-hour limit would have to pay a fee of $60. When Mo got out of the movie, he found a ticket on his car (a demand for payment of the $60). He refused to pay and was sued. What would be Mo's defence in these circumstances?

Accepted Answer

Mo would either claim that there was no

Question 14

A contract is binding if the consideration involved is a commitment not to do something, as opposed to a promise to do something.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 15

You owe Mr. Store $900 for goods received and want him to take $800 in full satisfaction of the debt. Which of the following is false?

Accepted Answer

A)  If he agrees with you and does take the $800, even if it is paid early at his request, he can still later sue you for the $100 forgiven. His promise not to demand the $100 from you was a gratuitous promise and therefore not binding. 
B)  If he actually takes the $800 in full satisfaction of the debt, statute law in many jurisdictions prohibits him from suing you for the $100. 
C)  If you pay the $800 before the actual due date in consideration for his taking this as full payment, he cannot sue for the other $100. 
D)  If Mr. Store agreed to take the $800 as full payment in exchange for your promise to sweep the floor of his store, he cannot sue for the $100. 
E)  If Mr. Store agreed to take the $800 as full payment, but before taking it changed his mind, he would be entitled to the entire $900. 
A)  If he agrees with you and does take the $800, even if it is paid early at his request, he can still later sue you for the $100 forgiven. His promise not to demand the $100 from you was a gratuitous promise and therefore not binding. 
B)  If he actually takes the $800 in full satisfaction of the debt, statute law in many jurisdictions prohibits him from suing you for the $100. 
C)  If you pay the $800 before the actual due date in consideration for his taking this as full payment, he cannot sue for the other $100. 
D)  If Mr. Store agreed to take the $800 as full payment in exchange for your promise to sweep the floor of his store, he cannot sue for the $100. 
E)  If Mr. Store agreed to take the $800 as full payment, but before taking it changed his mind, he would be entitled to the entire $900.

Question 16

XYZ company, a distributor of auto parts, is in debt to the bank for $35,000, due on February 25, 2017. The company is having difficulties and wants to negotiate with the bank to pay only $33,000 as payment in full. With these facts in mind, which of the following statements is false?

Accepted Answer

A)  If the bank agrees to accept the $33,000 as payment in full if paid early, by February 15, and the company does as requested, the bank could not later sue for the remainder because the company gave good consideration for the bank's forgiveness of the debt. 
B)  At common law, if the bank accepted the $33,000 as payment in full, even absent additional consideration, it could not later sue for the remainder because such promises are always binding. 
C)  If the company obtained from the bank the bank's promise to forgive the $2000 under seal, the bank could not later sue for the remainder. 
D)  In some jurisdictions, a statutory provision provides that the creditor who accepts less than full payment as payment in full cannot later sue for the remainder. 
E)  So long as they don't take the money, the bank can still sue for the entire amount. 
A)  If the bank agrees to accept the $33,000 as payment in full if paid early, by February 15, and the company does as requested, the bank could not later sue for the remainder because the company gave good consideration for the bank's forgiveness of the debt. 
B)  At common law, if the bank accepted the $33,000 as payment in full, even absent additional consideration, it could not later sue for the remainder because such promises are always binding. 
C)  If the company obtained from the bank the bank's promise to forgive the $2000 under seal, the bank could not later sue for the remainder. 
D)  In some jurisdictions, a statutory provision provides that the creditor who accepts less than full payment as payment in full cannot later sue for the remainder. 
E)  So long as they don't take the money, the bank can still sue for the entire amount.

Question 17

There is a principle that says when a gratuitous promise to do something in the future causes someone to incur an expense, the promisor may be liable for failing to live up to that promise. What is this principle known as?

Accepted Answer

The answer of There is a principle that says when...

Question 18

The promise to make a charitable donation is not enforceable because it is a one-sided promise, even if the charity makes a commitment in return-such as a promise to name a building after the donor, or to use the money in a certain way-it has made a commitment.

Accepted Answer

A) True 
 B)False

Question 19

Joe was a contractor and hired subtrades to help build his houses. Sam was a framer and had agreed to frame four houses for Joe for a set price. Joe was to supply the materials. After two houses were completed, Joe's suppliers increased the cost of lumber and Joe told Sam that he could no longer pay him the amount that they'd agreed. Sam agreed to take 15% less for the other two jobs, which were then completed. During this time, regular payments were made from Joe to Sam, but the total amount received was 15% lower than the originally agreed on price for the last two jobs. Sam sued Joe for the original contract price, claiming that he'd received no consideration for his agreement to take less for the last two jobs. Explain what defences may be available to Joe under these circumstances and his likelihood of success.

Accepted Answer

Joe could use promissory estoppel as his

Question 20

In Douez v. Facebook, the Supreme Court of Canada decided not to enforce Facebook's forum selection clause due to:

Accepted Answer

A)  Provisions in the BC Privacy Act. 
B)  No valid contract existed between Douez and Facebook. 
C)  Douez was able to show cause why it should not be enforced. 
D)  Douez was unable to show cause why it should not be enforced. 
E)  The Court determined there was no requirement to show cause. 
A)  Provisions in the BC Privacy Act. 
B)  No valid contract existed between Douez and Facebook. 
C)  Douez was able to show cause why it should not be enforced. 
D)  Douez was unable to show cause why it should not be enforced. 
E)  The Court determined there was no requirement to show cause.

Which of the following is an offer as opposed to an invitation to treat?

Which of the following would best satisfy the requirements for a good legal offer?

Joe owed Sam $500. Two days after the money was due, he came to Sam saying he couldn't pay the $500, but if Sam would accept $300 as full payment, Joe would pay him right then and there. Sam agreed and the money was paid. Sam then sued for the other $200. Will he win?

Even though a person promises to hold an offer open for a specified period of time, the offeror can revoke that offer before that time if he feels like it.

Discuss the validity of online transactions and the related issues that arise in transacting business over the Internet.

Which of the following shows accurate use of the doctrine of promissory (equitable) estoppel?

The ad in the Real Estate Weekly read: "Best offer in Toronto! 3-bedroom home in the Annex for only $700,000!" This is an example of which of the following?

Discuss the implications of a creditor agreeing to take less in full satisfaction of a debt.

If a person offers to hold his offer open for a period of time, he can still revoke it before that time if he changes his mind.

Which of the following shows accurate use of the doctrine of promissory (equitable) estoppel?

A contract is binding if the consideration involved is a commitment not to do something, as opposed to a promise to do something.

You owe Mr. Store $900 for goods received and want him to take $800 in full satisfaction of the debt. Which of the following is false?

XYZ company, a distributor of auto parts, is in debt to the bank for $35,000, due on February 25, 2017. The company is having difficulties and wants to negotiate with the bank to pay only $33,000 as payment in full. With these facts in mind, which of the following statements is false?

There is a principle that says when a gratuitous promise to do something in the future causes someone to incur an expense, the promisor may be liable for failing to live up to that promise. What is this principle known as?

The promise to make a charitable donation is not enforceable because it is a one-sided promise, even if the charity makes a commitment in return-such as a promise to name a building after the donor, or to use the money in a certain way-it has made a commitment.

In Douez v. Facebook, the Supreme Court of Canada decided not to enforce Facebook's forum selection clause due to:

Managing Your Legal Affairs

Introduction to the Legal System

The Resolution of Disputes: the Courts and Alternatives to Litigation

Intentional Torts and Torts Impacting Business

Negligence, Professional Liability, and Insurance

The Elements of a Contract: Capacity, Legality, and Intention

Factors Affecting the Contractual Relationship

The End of the Contractual Relationship

Agency and Partnership

Corporations

Employment

Intellectual Property

Real and Personal Property and Protection of the Environment

Priority of Creditors

Sales and Consumer Protection

Filters

Exam 6: The Elements of a Contract: Consensus and Consideration

Which of the following is an offer as opposed to an invitation to treat?

Which of the following would best satisfy the requirements for a good legal offer?

Joe owed Sam $500. Two days after the money was due, he came to Sam saying he couldn't pay the $500, but if Sam would accept $300 as full payment, Joe would pay him right then and there. Sam agreed and the money was paid. Sam then sued for the other $200. Will he win?

Even though a person promises to hold an offer open for a specified period of time, the offeror can revoke that offer before that time if he feels like it.

Discuss the validity of online transactions and the related issues that arise in transacting business over the Internet.

Which of the following shows accurate use of the doctrine of promissory (equitable) estoppel?

The ad in the Real Estate Weekly read: "Best offer in Toronto! 3-bedroom home in the Annex for only $700,000!" This is an example of which of the following?

Discuss the implications of a creditor agreeing to take less in full satisfaction of a debt.

If a person offers to hold his offer open for a period of time, he can still revoke it before that time if he changes his mind.

Which of the following shows accurate use of the doctrine of promissory (equitable) estoppel?

A contract is binding if the consideration involved is a commitment not to do something, as opposed to a promise to do something.

You owe Mr. Store $900 for goods received and want him to take $800 in full satisfaction of the debt. Which of the following is false?

XYZ company, a distributor of auto parts, is in debt to the bank for $35,000, due on February 25, 2017. The company is having difficulties and wants to negotiate with the bank to pay only $33,000 as payment in full. With these facts in mind, which of the following statements is false?

There is a principle that says when a gratuitous promise to do something in the future causes someone to incur an expense, the promisor may be liable for failing to live up to that promise. What is this principle known as?

The promise to make a charitable donation is not enforceable because it is a one-sided promise, even if the charity makes a commitment in return-such as a promise to name a building after the donor, or to use the money in a certain way-it has made a commitment.

In Douez v. Facebook, the Supreme Court of Canada decided not to enforce Facebook's forum selection clause due to:

Managing Your Legal Affairs

Introduction to the Legal System

The Resolution of Disputes: the Courts and Alternatives to Litigation

Intentional Torts and Torts Impacting Business

Negligence, Professional Liability, and Insurance

The Elements of a Contract: Capacity, Legality, and Intention

Factors Affecting the Contractual Relationship

The End of the Contractual Relationship

Agency and Partnership

Corporations

Employment

Intellectual Property

Real and Personal Property and Protection of the Environment

Priority of Creditors

Sales and Consumer Protection

Filters