Deck 18: Contracts in Writing

Question 1

The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act reflects the decision that electronic transactions do not constitute a written copy because the electronic transaction is not technically a written document.

Answer 1

False

Question 2

Under the agent negotiation rule, if a contract falls within the statute of frauds if negotiated by a person, it must also be in writing even if negotiated by that person's agent.

Answer 2

False

Question 3

A promise to pay a debt that has already been discharged in bankruptcy must be in writing in order to be enforceable in some states.

Answer 3

True

Question 4

When a contract is incomplete, a court will not look at industry standards to complete the contract unless the parties had agreed to follow standard industry practice.

Question 5

Contracts related to an interest in land are within the scope of the statute of frauds and are to be evidenced by a writing.

Question 6

Colin and Natalie orally agreed with Medical Center X for an in vitro fertilization procedure that would not result in the birth of an autistic child. They later signed a written contract stating that the medical center could not promise an absence of physical or mental defects and assumed no responsibility for such defects. The child conceived had autism. Which of the following is the most likely result of the parents' suit for breach of the oral agreement if the court follows the decision in Scalisi et al. v. New York University Medical Center discussed in the text?

A) The oral agreement will be enforced, and the parents will prevail under the exception to the parol evidence rule involving contracts conditioned on orally agreed upon terms.
B) The oral agreement will be enforced, and the parents will prevail under the exception to the parol evidence rule involving contracts that are not final as they are part written and part oral.
C) The oral agreement will be enforced, and the parents will prevail under the exception to the parol evidence rule involving contracts that are incomplete.
D) The oral agreement will be enforced, and the parents will prevail under the exception to the parol evidence rule involving evidence of prior dealings or usage of trade.
E) The medical center will prevail based upon the written contract.

Question 7

Whenever a written agreement under the statute of frauds contains a serious, and obvious, typographical error, parol evidence is admissible to demonstrate that the error was indeed an error, as well as to set forth the proper term.

Question 8

In the U.S., the requirements for what falls within the statue of frauds is expanding, while in England almost all their requirements for a writing have been repealed.

Question 9

Thea has a large farm and significant other assets. She agreed to loan her nephew Marcus $100,000 with payments of principle and interest to be made yearly. A few years later she and Marcus got into a dispute because Thea did not like his new girlfriend, Eileen. Soon thereafter Marcus got notice that Thea was suing him for not paying interest on the note. Marcus defended on the basis that two years after the initial loan agreement was entered into, he and Thea entered into an oral agreement that he would perform services on her farm in lieu of paying interest on the note. If the court follows the reasoning of the court in the Case Opener involving Monroe Bradstad and Jeanne Garland, which of the following is the most likely result of the dispute between Thea and Marcus involving whether he owes past interest amounts?

A) Marcus will be required to pay the interest amounts because the agreement involving performing services in lieu of paying interest was not in writing.
B) Marcus will be required to pay the interest amounts because the parol evidence rule bars evidence of any oral agreement outside the written agreement.
C) Assuming the court credits Marcus' account of events, Marcus will not be required to pay the interest amounts because the oral agreement will be considered a separate enforceable agreement.
D) Assuming the court credits Marcus' account of events, Marcus will not be required to pay the interest amounts because the oral agreement will be considered an extension and part of the original written agreement.
E) Assuming the court credits Marcus' account of events, based on the parol evidence rule, Marcus will be required to pay only 1/2 of the interest amounts.

Question 10

The concept of performance has no effect on the statute of frauds.

Question 11

Oral modifications are inadmissible and unenforceable if a contract's terms require that modification be in writing.

Question 12

The purpose of the parol evidence rule is to allow oral evidence to prove agreements.

Question 13

"Statute of Frauds" is a title in the United States Code of Laws.

Question 14

What did the appellate court rule in the case in the text, Power Entertainment, Inc., et. al. v. National Football League Properties, Inc., involving the enforceability of an alleged oral agreement by which the plaintiff assumed a third party's debt owed to the defendant in return for the defendant transferring a licensing agreement to the plaintiff?

A) That the plaintiff was barred from recovery by the suretyship provision of the statute of frauds.
B) That the plaintiff could recover because the original agreement between the third party and the defendant was in writing.
C) That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the main purpose doctrine.
D) That the oral agreement fell outside the statute of frauds if the plaintiff satisfied the parol evidence rule.
E) That the plaintiff could recover as a matter of law because the statute of frauds does not apply to suretyship agreements.

Question 15

All parties to a contract must sign the writing in order for the statute of frauds to be satisfied.

Question 16

An oral contract for customized goods is enforceable.

Question 17

Which of the following was the result in the Case Nugget in the text involving the dispute between Dr. Ralph M. Aurigemma and New Castle Care, LLC, involving whether an oral agreement entered into on September 4 involving Dr. Aurigemma serving as medical director from October 1 of that year until October 1 of the next year was enforceable?

A) That the contract was enforceable because agreements for professional services do not come within the protection of the statute of frauds.
B) That the contract was enforceable because of the partial-performance exception to the statute of frauds.
C) That the contract was not in writing and, therefore, could not be enforced.
D) That the contract could not be enforced because of the parol evidence rule.
E) That the contract could be enforced because of the parol evidence rule.

Question 18

Merger clauses are considered by all courts to be conclusive proof of a contract.

Question 19

Parol evidence is admissible when a court deems a contract integrated.

Question 20

Which of the following is false regarding written contracts?

A) Disputes are easier to settle when contractual terms are solidified in writing.
B) The moment of writing allows both parties to reconsider terms and ensure what they desire.
C) In general, written contracts aid in the conduct of smooth business contracts.
D) The idea of requiring a writing comes from an English law.
E) All contracts must be in writing in order to be enforced.

Question 21

Which statement is false regarding the statute of frauds?

A) It relates to fraudulent contracts.
B) It does not address illegal contracts.
C) It does not exist at the federal level.
D) It requires that only certain contracts be in writing.
E) It is not a unitary government act.

Question 22

Melinda signs a three year contract for employment as a legal studies lecturer. Does this type of contract fall within the scope of the statute of frauds?

A) Yes, because it is a contract whose terms prevent possible performance within one year
B) Yes, because it is a contract involving the provision of services
C) No, because the contract does not involve the provision of any goods
D) No, because the contract does not involve any debt
E) No, because the contract does not involve services in relation to computer equipment

Question 23

________ is the term used for debts incurred in an initial contract.

A) Secondary promise
B) Primary promise
C) Primary obligation
D) First in time promise
E) Debtor's promise

Question 24

All states except ________ and ________ adhere to the admission exception to the statute of frauds.

A) New York and California
B) Texas and Oklahoma
C) Louisiana and Georgia
D) California and Louisiana
E) Florida and California

Question 25

As discussed in the text, a main purpose of the ________ is to prevent unreliable oral evidence from interfering with a contractual relationship.

A) hearsay rule
B) statute of frauds
C) contractual relationship rules
D) rules against frauds
E) inclusivity rule

Question 26

In 1677, the English Parliament passed the ________.

A) Act to Prevent Unjust Contracts
B) Prevention of Frauds Act
C) Perjury Prevention Act
D) Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries
E) Act of the Queen against Frauds

Question 27

Within the statute of frauds, the ________ is an exception as to when a secondary obligation does not need to be in writing.

A) primary-purpose rule
B) resulting-fact rule
C) main-purpose rule
D) delineated rule
E) personal-obligation standard

Question 28

Which of the following is false regarding the statute of frauds and promises made in consideration of marriage?

A) Agreements regarding marriage in which one party is gaining something other than a return on his or her promise to marry are within the statute of frauds and must be in writing.
B) Mutual promises to marry fall within the statute of frauds.
C) Prenuptial agreements fall within the statute of frauds.
D) A prenuptial agreement is not automatically enforceable just because it is in writing.
E) When one party promises something to the other as part of an offer of marriage, the contract must be in writing to be enforceable.

Question 29

Contracts for the sale of goods totaling more than $500 must be in writing according to ________.

A) federal law
B) Contract Federation Rules
C) the Uniform Commercial Code
D) state statutes
E) Uniform Contract Rules

Question 30

________ is the term for contracts within the statute of frauds involving promises to pay a debt of another if the initial party fails to pay.

A) Promissory estoppel
B) Elementary promises
C) Debt reconciliation
D) Debtor's friend
E) Secondary obligation

Question 31

Which of the following is true regarding what is considered an interest in land within the statute of frauds?

A) Interests in land within the statute of frauds include promises to sell crops annually and agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property, but not boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land.
B) Interests in land within the statute of frauds include promises to sell crops annually, but not agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property or boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land.
C) Interests in land within the statute of frauds include boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land, but not promises to sell crops annually or agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property.
D) Interests in land within the statute of frauds include boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land and promises to sell crops annually, but not agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property.
E) Interests in land within the statute of frauds does not include promises to sell crops annually, agreements between parties for profit sharing from the sale of real property, and boundary disputes that have been settled through the use of land.

Question 32

Truduea and Melania have negotiated an agreement to buy computer parts for Melania's business. In order to satisfy the UCC's writing requirements, what must be included in their written agreement?

A) The contract or memorandum needs only to state the price of the goods.
B) The contract or memorandum needs only to state the quality of the goods.
C) The contract or memorandum needs only to state the quantity to be sold.
D) The contract or memorandum needs to state the price of the goods and the quality of the goods, but not the quantity to be sold.
E) The contract or memorandum needs to state the price of the goods, the quality of the goods, and also the quantity to be sold.

Question 33

Lonnie and Pamela have been negotiating a contract over the phone for a prime piece of property. Pamela believes that they have a contract due to all of Lonnie's assertions and begins to clear the trees and brush. If Lonnie tries to indicate that there is not a contract because all the assertions are oral, Pamela could use the ________ exception to prove there is in fact a contract.

A) substantial performance
B) partial-performance
C) sales substantiation
D) the purchase proof rule
E) oral proof

Question 34

Which of the following is a type of contract that does not fall within the scope of the statute of frauds?

A) Contracts related to an interest in land
B) Promises made in consideration of marriage
C) Contracts related to any lease of land-related equipment
D) Contracts whose terms prevent possible performance within one year
E) Contracts for one party to pay the debt of another if the initial party fails to pay

Question 35

While testifying on the stand in his breach of contract suit, Constantine admitted that he sold land to Felipe. This is known as a(n) ________.

A) confirmation
B) perjury
C) deposition
D) admission
E) acknowledgment

Question 36

Which of the following is false regarding the statute of frauds provision relating to an interest in land?

A) The statute is intended to prevent oral claims to the existence of a contract for the sale of land.
B) The statute requires a writing as evidence of a contract to sell land.
C) A claim to an oral contract for the sale of land is not enough to prove a contract of sale existed.
D) Mortgages on land are within the statute of frauds.
E) No leases are within the statute of frauds.

Question 37

In most states, which of the following are exceptions to when the statute of frauds would apply?

A) Admissions, partial performance, and promissory estoppel
B) Partial performance and admissions, but not promissory estoppel
C) Promissory estoppel but not admissions or partial performance
D) Promissory estoppel and partial performance, but not admissions
E) Admissions but not partial performance or promissory estoppel

Question 38

William and Katherine are planning to get married. William's attorney indicated the parties should sign an agreement before the two get married that clearly states the ownership rights each party enjoys in the other party's property. This is known as a(n) ________.

A) Premarriage Contract
B) Property Marriage Agreement
C) Marriage Contract
D) Prenuptial Agreement
E) Arranged Marriage Agreement

Question 39

Which of the following was the result in the case in the text Sewing v. Bowman, involving the issue of whether an agreement to share in the profits of the land, such as appreciation in the value of the properties and rental income, came within the statute of frauds?

A) The court ruled that the land constituted an asset of the partnership, so the partnership agreement did not come within the statute of frauds.
B) The court ruled that the agreement did involve an interest in land and, therefore, came within the statute of frauds.
C) The court ruled that the agreement did not involve an interest in land but placed it within the statute of frauds in order to prevent injustice.
D) The court ruled that the agreement fell within the statute of frauds but that an oral agreement was sufficient.
E) The court ruled that the agreement to share in the appreciation of the value of the land did not fall within the statute of frauds and that no writing was needed, but that the agreement to share the rental income did fall within the statute of frauds requiring a writing.

Question 40

Within the ________, "land" encompasses not only the land and soil itself but anything attached to the land.

A) parol evidence rule
B) statute of frauds
C) common law rules governing land
D) land contracts rule
E) the rule of promissory estoppel

Question 41

[Not So Rich Uncle] Gabriel is attempting to convince Rachel to marry him. He promises her that if she will marry him, he will buy a new Mercedes automobile for her within six months of the marriage and take her on a world tour within a year of the marriage date. Rachel agrees, and they sign an agreement by which Gabriel agrees to provide the Mercedes and world tour. The agreement also included several clauses that discussed the distribution of other assets that may be acquired during the marriage in the event a dissolution of the marriage ever happened. Gabriel and Rachel marry on January 1. Unexpectedly, on March 1, Gabriel's supposedly rich uncle, Leo, dies. Leo has no living relatives other than Gabriel and has a will leaving everything to Gabriel who is also appointed executor. In attempting to settle the estate, Gabriel agrees orally to pay out of his own pocket debts of Leo totaling $10,000. Rachel is concerned about Gabriel's doing so. Gabriel tells her not to worry because he will get all the money back when the estate settles. Gabriel admits to a number of friends that he agreed to settle the debts out of his own pocket because he needed to obtain assets from the estate in a hurry and did not want anything to slow down probate. The assets were needed in large part to satisfy his obligations to Rachel. Surprisingly, it later came to light that prior to his death Leo had signed away all his assets to his girlfriend in Argentina. There was nothing left in the estate for Gabriel to inherit. Gabriel disavowed his agreement to pay the $10,000 to various creditors of Leo.
Regarding Gabriel's promises to Rachel of a Mercedes and a trip, which of the following is true?

A) The promises fall within the statute of frauds.
B) The promises do not fall within the statute of frauds because they involve material matters, not matters involving home and children.
C) The promises do not fall within the statute of frauds unless Rachel can prove that she would not have married Gabriel without the assurance of the Mercedes and the trip.
D) The promises fall within the statute of frauds unless Gabriel can prove that Rachel would have married him without the assurance of the Mercedes and the trip.
E) The promises would have fallen within the statute of frauds in earlier times in history, but would not fall within the statute of frauds in this day and time.

Question 42

[Not So Rich Uncle] Gabriel is attempting to convince Rachel to marry him. He promises her that if she will marry him, he will buy a new Mercedes automobile for her within six months of the marriage and take her on a world tour within a year of the marriage date. Rachel agrees, and they sign an agreement by which Gabriel agrees to provide the Mercedes and world tour. The agreement also included several clauses that discussed the distribution of other assets that may be acquired during the marriage in the event a dissolution of the marriage ever happened. Gabriel and Rachel marry on January 1. Unexpectedly, on March 1, Gabriel's supposedly rich uncle, Leo, dies. Leo has no living relatives other than Gabriel and has a will leaving everything to Gabriel who is also appointed executor. In attempting to settle the estate, Gabriel agrees orally to pay out of his own pocket debts of Leo totaling $10,000. Rachel is concerned about Gabriel's doing so. Gabriel tells her not to worry because he will get all the money back when the estate settles. Gabriel admits to a number of friends that he agreed to settle the debts out of his own pocket because he needed to obtain assets from the estate in a hurry and did not want anything to slow down probate. The assets were needed in large part to satisfy his obligations to Rachel. Surprisingly, it later came to light that prior to his death Leo had signed away all his assets to his girlfriend in Argentina. There was nothing left in the estate for Gabriel to inherit. Gabriel disavowed his agreement to pay the $10,000 to various creditors of Leo.
What is the most likely result of Gabriel's attempt to avoid his agreement to pay creditors of the estate out of his own pocket?

A) He will be able to avoid the agreement because it was not in writing.
B) He will be able to avoid the agreement because a promise to pay the debts of an estate would not come within the statute of frauds.
C) A promise to pay debts of an estate out of an executor's own funds would come within the statute of frauds, but the oral agreement Gabriel made will likely be enforceable under the substantial-purpose rule.
D) A promise to pay debts of an estate out of an executor's own funds would come within the statute of frauds, but the oral agreement Gabriel made will likely be enforceable under the main-purpose rule.
E) A promise to pay debts of an estate out of an executor's own funds would come within the statute of frauds; but regardless of whether the creditors can establish reliance, the oral agreement Gabriel made will likely be enforceable because he admitted he had agreed to pay.

Question 43

Which of the following is true regarding writings created at the same time as a written agreement?

A) Although the parol evidence rule applies to writings created at the same time as the written agreement, these writings tend to be treated differently than prior or contemporaneous oral agreements in that the writings are more readily admitted as part of the written agreement than is oral evidence.
B) Although the parol evidence rule applies to writings created at the same time as the written agreement, these writings tend to be treated differently than prior or contemporaneous oral agreements in that the writings are less likely to be admitted as part of the written agreement than is oral evidence.
C) The parol evidence rule applies to writings created at the same time as the written agreement, and these writings are analyzed in the same way as prior or contemporaneous oral evidence.
D) The parol evidence rule applies to writings created at the same time as the written agreement only if a sale of goods is involved, and in that case the writings are analyzed in the same way as prior or contemporaneous oral evidence.
E) The parol evidence rule does not apply to writings created at the same time as the written agreement.

Question 44

A[n] ________ clause is one way parties can indicate their desire to create an integrated contract.

A) Complete
B) Merger
C) Adhesion
D) Bilateral
E) Acknowledged

Question 45

Which of the following is false regarding international treatment of evidentiary matters?

A) German law does not have a parol evidence rule.
B) France has a limited parol evidence rule.
C) The parol evidence rule in France does not apply to commercial contracts.
D) England requires that promises to pay for the debt of others be in writing.
E) England has significantly increased the number of contracts falling within the statute of frauds since the original act was passed.

Question 46

[Not So Rich Uncle] Gabriel is attempting to convince Rachel to marry him. He promises her that if she will marry him, he will buy a new Mercedes automobile for her within six months of the marriage and take her on a world tour within a year of the marriage date. Rachel agrees, and they sign an agreement by which Gabriel agrees to provide the Mercedes and world tour. The agreement also included several clauses that discussed the distribution of other assets that may be acquired during the marriage in the event a dissolution of the marriage ever happened. Gabriel and Rachel marry on January 1. Unexpectedly, on March 1, Gabriel's supposedly rich uncle, Leo, dies. Leo has no living relatives other than Gabriel and has a will leaving everything to Gabriel who is also appointed executor. In attempting to settle the estate, Gabriel agrees orally to pay out of his own pocket debts of Leo totaling $10,000. Rachel is concerned about Gabriel's doing so. Gabriel tells her not to worry because he will get all the money back when the estate settles. Gabriel admits to a number of friends that he agreed to settle the debts out of his own pocket because he needed to obtain assets from the estate in a hurry and did not want anything to slow down probate. The assets were needed in large part to satisfy his obligations to Rachel. Surprisingly, it later came to light that prior to his death Leo had signed away all his assets to his girlfriend in Argentina. There was nothing left in the estate for Gabriel to inherit. Gabriel disavowed his agreement to pay the $10,000 to various creditors of Leo.
The agreement between Gabriel and Rachel before they married is known as a(n):

A) Prenuptial agreement
B) Dissolution of marriage contract
C) Premarriage agreement
D) Agreement of marriage
E) Memorandum of marriage

Question 47

Which of the following is true regarding a signature on a document falling within the statute of frauds?

A) There is no requirement of any signature of either party to satisfy the statute of frauds.
B) Any party required to sign must sign at the beginning of the document.
C) Any party required to sign must sign at the end of the document.
D) Any party required to sign must sign both at the end and at the beginning of the document.
E) So long as it is meant as a signature, a party required to sign may sign at any place on the document.

Question 48

What was the result in Heritage Constructors, Inc. v. Chrietzberg Electric, Inc., and Richard Marc Chrietzberg, the case in the text in which the plaintiff, a general contractor, filed a breach of contract action against the defendant, an electrical subcontractor that withdrew its bid right before the contract was to be performed? The defendant claimed the agreement did not satisfy the statute of frauds and that the general contractor's breach of contract claim was barred.

A) Judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed because, although none of the writings mention the plaintiff, oral testimony was admissible to supply an essential term of the agreement.
B) Judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed because the writings along with oral testimony were sufficient to satisfy the status of frauds.
C) The plaintiff's claim was dismissed because none of the writings mention the plaintiff or identify the plaintiff as a party to the contract, and oral testimony was necessary to supply an essential term of the agreement, and thus they are insufficient to satisfy the statute of frauds.
D) The plaintiff's claim was dismissed because the oral agreement was unenforceable because there was no writing.
E) Judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed since no writing was required because the agreement did not come within the statute of frauds.

Question 49

In the "parol evidence rule," what does the term "parol" mean?

A) Words establishing penalties
B) Speech or words, specifically words outside the original writing
C) Oral speech as opposed to written words
D) Written words as opposed to oral speech
E) Signature required

Question 50

Lima called Mark and asked him to build her another custom dresser for her house like one he had previously built. Lima decided she didn't want it after Mark tried to deliver it. She tells Mark they have no contract. Is she correct?

A) Yes, oral contracts for customized goods are enforceable.
B) Yes, but only if Mark can prove the phone call was placed by Lima.
C) Yes, but only if parol evidence can be used to show the parties intent.
D) No, all contracts must be in writing.
E) No, oral contracts are not legal.

Question 51

Which of the following is false regarding the parol evidence rule?

A) The purpose of the rule is to prevent evidence that substantially contradicts an agreement in its written form.
B) The rule is a rule of evidence.
C) The rule relates to substantive legal issues.
D) The rule is not a unitary concept or rule.
E) The rule is an amalgamation of different rules and conditions.

Question 52

Written contracts intended to be the complete and final representation of the parties' agreement are what kind of contracts?

A) Complete contracts
B) Integrated contracts
C) Adhesion contracts
D) Bilateral contracts
E) Acknowledged contracts

Question 53

A(n) ________ clause is often included by parties in a written agreement that states that the written agreement accurately reflects the final, complete version of the agreement.

A) adhesion
B) competency
C) parol evidence
D) completion
E) merger

Question 54

[Courtroom Surprises] Alexandra agrees to sell Rishi her house for $200,000. Alexandra, Rishi, and the house are all located in Tennessee. She also orally agrees to sell her used car to Rishi for $1,000. Alexandra and Rishi discuss the fact that the house needs some repairs. Alexandra gives Rishi a key and tells him to do whatever he wants with the house. In reliance on her promise to sell the house, Rishi sells his home, gets a loan, and has a new roof put on Alexandra's house because of leaks that needed to be repaired to prevent further damage. When presented with the written agreements of sale for the home and the car, however, Alexandra refuses to sign either. Rishi sues, and the case proceeds to trial. Alexandra tells the judge in court under oath that she orally agreed to sell the house but that she changed her mind before signing and that she believes she has protection under the statute of frauds. She tells the judge that no agreement was ever made regarding the car and that she also has protection under the statute of frauds regarding that matter.
Regarding Alexandra's statement to the judge under oath that she orally agreed to sell the house, which of the following is true?

A) The statement has no effect because of the statute of frauds.
B) The statement would be excluded from consideration as parol evidence but only because it involved an amount in excess of $5,000.
C) The judge would be estopped from considering the evidence.
D) The statement would be classified as an admission and would establish an exception to the statute of frauds involving the agreement on the house.
E) The statement would be excluded from consideration because of the collateral interest rule.

Question 55

In which circumstance may a court find parol evidence admissible to further the court's understanding of an agreement?

A) When a court determines that there is significant disagreement regarding the complete and final version of the agreement.
B) When a court determines that a written agreement does not represent a complete and final version of the agreement.
C) When a court determines that there is disagreement between the parties' over performance of the agreement once performance has actually started.
D) When a court determines that the plaintiff failed to do sufficient research to determine if signing the agreement was advisable.
E) When a court determines that either party failed to do sufficient research to determine if signing the agreement was advisable.

Question 56

The legal enforcement of an otherwise unenforceable contract due to a party's detrimental reliance on the contract is known as ________.

A) promissory estoppel
B) substantial estoppel
C) the promissory rule
D) the reliance rule
E) promissory reliance

Question 57

The ________ addresses the admissibility of oral evidence as it relates to written contracts.

A) oral admissibility test
B) oral evidence rule
C) parol evidence rule
D) fraud evidence rule
E) deficient evidence test

Question 58

What is a purpose of the parol evidence rule?

A) To restrict oral evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form.
B) To restrict written evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form.
C) To restrict oral and written evidence from being admitted that supports an agreement in its written form.
D) To restrict hearsay from being admitted that supports or contradicts an agreement in its written form.
E) To restrict evidence from being admitted that substantially contradicts an agreement in its written form.

Question 59

Nadia, the president of XYZ Co., and Ramon orally agreed that Ramon would work as a computer programmer for XYZ Co. for a three-year period. Their oral agreement also covered other matters such as his pay and the availability of one week of paid vacation. On the day he talked with Nadia, Ramon signed an employee handbook including a provision that his employment was at will, meaning that at any time he could quit or the company could discharge him. A month later, Ramon received a three-year contract for employment with XYZ Co. in the mail incorporating the amount of his salary and other issues he had discussed with Nadia. Ramon signed it and mailed it back, but he changed the vacation provision to three weeks instead of one week. Brendan, the human resources manager for XYZ Co., called Ramon after receiving the agreement and told Ramon that the contract was only a draft for discussion purposes and that he was actually firing Ramon because he seemed too focused on vacation. Assuming the court follows the reasoning of the court in the dispute discussed in the text involving Michael Gallagher and Medical Research Consultants, which of the following would be the most likely result in the dispute between Ramon and XYZ Co. if Ramon claims he had a three-year contract of employment?

A) XYZ Co. will win because even if a three-year oral agreement for employment was made, it would not have been enforceable because the statute of frauds requires that agreements that cannot be completed within one year be in writing. Further, the draft Ramon returned was not signed by XYZ Co.
B) XYZ Co. will win because although the three-year oral agreement for employment was initially enforceable, Ramon reopened negotiations by altering the later contract to provide that he was to receive three weeks of vacation.
C) XYZ Co. will win because as a matter of law, no other document can alter the provisions of an employee handbook.
D) A jury will decide if Nadia orally agreed to a three-year contract; and, if so, Ramon gets his job back along with the extra weeks of vacation.
E) As a matter of law, since the contract was sent to Ramon, he received a guarantee of employment for three years; but he does not get the extra weeks of vacation he inserted.

Question 60

Which of the following parties must sign a document coming within the statute of frauds?

A) The party against whom action is sought
B) The offeror only
C) The offeree only
D) Only a person who has agreed to pay the debt of another
E) Any party to the contract

Question 61

[Kids' debts] Marta agrees to buy Natasha's convertible, but Marta may be losing her job, in which case, her mother Lottie will pay pursuant to the terms of the contract Lottie signed. Jeb signs an agreement to pay for his son Byron's plastic surgery, if his son cannot afford the payments. Lucia agrees to sell her drumset to Marcus because Marcus' father said he will back the deal.
Which of the following statements is true about the likelihood of the secondary obligations being enforced?

A) All of the agreements can be enforced because they are secondary obligations.
B) Since Lottie and Jeb signed agreements, those obligations could be enforced.
C) Marcus' father did not sign a writing, so the agreement cannot be enforced against him under any circumstances.
D) The agreements could be enforced against Byron's father Jeb and Marcus' father.
E) The agreements could be enforced against Lottie and Marcus' father.

Question 62

Alvin promised Gia that if she quit her job in California and moved to New York, he would have a job for her. Gia sells everything and moves to New York. Alvin however does not hire Gia to work. Under which of the following circumstances would promissory estoppel take effect?

A) Gia relied on Alvin's promise to her detriment and Alvin should have known Gia would rely on it.
B) Gia relied on Alvin's promise to her detriment.
C) Gia's reliance on Alvin's promise was foreseeable.
D) Alvin knew Gia would rely on his promise.
E) Gia relied on Alvin's promise which Alvin knew she would do.

Question 63

Which of the following is not a type of contract within the statute of frauds that concerns a promise to pay a debt?

A) Secondary obligation.
B) Secondary promise.
C) Collateral promise.
D) Suretyship promise.
E) Promissory estoppel.

Question 64

[Kids' debts] Marta agrees to buy Natasha's convertible, but Marta may be losing her job, in which case, her mother Lottie will pay pursuant to the terms of the contract Lottie signed. Jeb signs an agreement to pay for his son Byron's plastic surgery, if his son cannot afford the payments. Lucia agrees to sell her drumset to Marcus because Marcus' father said he will back the deal.
Which individuals would be considered to have secondary obligations?

A) Marta, Byron, and Marcus.
B) Natasha, Jeb, and Lucia.
C) Natasha's father, Byron, and Marcus' father.
D) Lottie, Jeb, and Marcus' father.
E) Lottie, Byron, and Marcus' father.

Question 65

[Awesome tuners] Trace owns a music store. At a recent convention, he meets Terrill, who makes electronic guitar tuners. Terrill gives Trace a free sample and tells Trace that his guitar tuners are $20 each. Trace says he definitely wants to buy some and he will email the quantity. After the convention, Terrill emails Trace stating, "Do you still want to buy some tuners?" Trace replies, "Yes! 30 please!" However, Terrill never sends the tuners. Trace tells him they had a deal and that Terrill needs to send the tuners. Terrill, who went to business school, tells Trace that the UCC requires contracts for the sale of goods over $500 to be in writing, and his email reply doesn't satisfy the statute of frauds.
Is Terrill correct that they do not have a sufficient written contract?

A) Yes, because the email is insufficient to constitute a writing as it did not include price.
B) Yes, because the only term was the quantity, which is not enough to establish a contract.
C) Yes, because the agreement was less than $500, which need not be in writing.
D) No, because the writing need only state the quantity to be sold.
E) No, because he is confusing the sale of goods with the sale of personal property.

Question 66

Which of the following contracts would fall within the statute of frauds and therefore requires a writing?

A) On June 15, Luigi hires Vela to work for him for one year, starting July 1.
B) On June 15, Luigi hires Vela to work for him for one year, starting immediately.
C) On June 15, Luigi hires Vela to work for him for one year, starting the next day
D) On June 15, Luigi hires Vela to work for him for six months, starting November 1.
E) On June 15, Luigi hires Vela to work for him for six months, starting December 15.

Question 67

Under which of the following circumstances would a partial-performance exception not apply?

A) Sale of a farm, but not the entire property.
B) Sale of a house, where the buyer has put down a 5% deposit.
C) Sale of a farm, where the buyer has paid for a new roof.
D) Sale of a house, where the seller gave keys to the buyer and the buyer has moved several large pieces of furniture into the garage.
E) Sale of a house, where the buyer has planted several trees before winter.

Question 68

[Lake House] Damian has two houses, a house on the lake and a house in town. Frida wants to buy the house on the lake. Damian and Frida orally agree that Frida will buy the house on the lake for $300,000. Damian hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Frida for $300,000. Damian signs the top of the document. Frida does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Damian backs out of the contract, and Frida sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is left unsatisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and also because Frida did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in town, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house.
Regarding Damian's assertion that the statute of frauds is left unsatisfied because he did not sign the document at the end, which of the following is true?

A) Damian is correct.
B) Damian is incorrect because while the statute of frauds would require his signature on the document, there is no requirement that the signature be at the end.
C) Damian is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the selling price was referenced.
D) Damian is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced.
E) Damian is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require his signature so long as the parties were clearly identified.

Question 69

Which of the following contracts would fall outside the statute of frauds and does not require a writing?

A) Lani offers to paint Ry's house for $1,000.
B) Lani offers to buy Ry's horse for $1,000.
C) Lani offers to marry Ry in three years.
D) Lani offers to pay Ry's student loan if Ry defaults.
E) Lani offers to buy the corner of Ry's property where Ry's horse grazes.

Question 70

[Lake House] Damian has two houses, a house on the lake and a house in town. Frida wants to buy the house on the lake. Damian and Frida orally agree that Frida will buy the house on the lake for $300,000. Damian hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Frida for $300,000. Damian signs the top of the document. Frida does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Damian backs out of the contract, and Frida sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is left unsatisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and also because Frida did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in town, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house.
Regarding Damian's assertion that the statute of frauds is not satisfied because Frida did not sign the document, which of the following is true?

A) Damian is correct.
B) Damian is incorrect because he is the one being sued, and he signed the document.
C) Damian is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the selling price was referenced.
D) Damian is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the type of subject matter involved was referenced.
E) Damian is incorrect because the statute of frauds did not require her signature so long as the parties were clearly identified.

Question 71

[Courtroom Surprises] Alexandra agrees to sell Rishi her house for $200,000. Alexandra, Rishi, and the house are all located in Tennessee. She also orally agrees to sell her used car to Rishi for $1,000. Alexandra and Rishi discuss the fact that the house needs some repairs. Alexandra gives Rishi a key and tells him to do whatever he wants with the house. In reliance on her promise to sell the house, Rishi sells his home, gets a loan, and has a new roof put on Alexandra's house because of leaks that needed to be repaired to prevent further damage. When presented with the written agreements of sale for the home and the car, however, Alexandra refuses to sign either. Rishi sues, and the case proceeds to trial. Alexandra tells the judge in court under oath that she orally agreed to sell the house but that she changed her mind before signing and that she believes she has protection under the statute of frauds. She tells the judge that no agreement was ever made regarding the car and that she also has protection under the statute of frauds regarding that matter.
Regarding Alexandra's statement to the judge that the agreement to sell the car was covered by the statute of frauds, which of the following is true?

A) She was correct.
B) She was incorrect because while the UCC has a provision regarding writings for the sale of certain goods, that provision is not a part of the statute of frauds.
C) She was incorrect because the statute of frauds provision involving the sale of goods only applies to goods costing over $1,500.
D) She was incorrect because the statute of frauds provision involving the sale of goods only applies to goods costing over $2,000.
E) She was incorrect because the statute of frauds provision involving the sale of goods only applies to goods costing over $5,000.

Question 72

[Awesome tuners] Trace owns a music store. At a recent convention, he meets Terrill, who makes electronic guitar tuners. Terrill gives Trace a free sample and tells Trace that his guitar tuners are $20 each. Trace says he definitely wants to buy some and he will email the quantity. After the convention, Terrill emails Trace stating, "Do you still want to buy some tuners?" Trace replies, "Yes! 30 please!" However, Terrill never sends the tuners. Trace tells him they had a deal and that Terrill needs to send the tuners. Terrill, who went to business school, tells Trace that the UCC requires contracts for the sale of goods over $500 to be in writing, and his email reply doesn't satisfy the statute of frauds.
Trace claims that one of the contract terms is the $20 price per tuner. Is he correct?

A) Yes, but only if there is another writing with the $20 price per tuner.
B) Yes, because the written agreement was conditioned on the $20 per tuner oral agreement.
C) No, because he failed to include price in the writing.
D) No, because the parol evidence rule prevents parties from introducing oral evidence when there is a written contract.
E) No, because no exception applies to the parol evidence rule.

Question 73

Which of the following promises would not need to be in writing to be enforceable?

A) Jonie and Kiel promise to marry each other.
B) Jonie promises to buy Kiel a big ring if they get married.
C) Jonie promises that his house will also be Kiel's house when they get married.
D) Jonie promises he will marry Kiel in two years and pay for a big wedding.
E) Kiel promises to marry Jonie and take Jonie on a honeymoon to Paris.

Question 74

[Courtroom Surprises] Alexandra agrees to sell Rishi her house for $200,000. Alexandra, Rishi, and the house are all located in Tennessee. She also orally agrees to sell her used car to Rishi for $1,000. Alexandra and Rishi discuss the fact that the house needs some repairs. Alexandra gives Rishi a key and tells him to do whatever he wants with the house. In reliance on her promise to sell the house, Rishi sells his home, gets a loan, and has a new roof put on Alexandra's house because of leaks that needed to be repaired to prevent further damage. When presented with the written agreements of sale for the home and the car, however, Alexandra refuses to sign either. Rishi sues, and the case proceeds to trial. Alexandra tells the judge in court under oath that she orally agreed to sell the house but that she changed her mind before signing and that she believes she has protection under the statute of frauds. She tells the judge that no agreement was ever made regarding the car and that she also has protection under the statute of frauds regarding that matter.
Regarding Rishi getting a loan and putting a new roof on the house, which of the following is true?

A) Rishi should have known better, and his actions would be of no use to him in attempting to enforce the contract.
B) The judge would consider his actions under the UCC as exceptions to the parol evidence rule.
C) His actions would likely amount to promissory estoppel, which establishes an exception to the statute of frauds.
D) His actions would be considered as admissions.
E) His actions would be considered only because Alexandra told the judge that she had orally agreed to the contract.

Question 75

Gianni hires Dolton to work as his driver with an annual salary of $100,000 for the rest of Dolton's life. After two years, Gianni decides to fire Dolton. Dolton claims they have a valid contract, but Gianni says it is barred by the statute of frauds because they never put anything in writing. Who is correct?

A) Gianni, because the contract cannot be completed in one year.
B) Dolton, because the contract can be completed in one year because Dolton could die within a year of the contract's creation.
C) Gianni, because Dolton did not die during the year after the contract's creation.
D) Gianni, because Gianni did not sign any agreement and he is the party being charged.
E) Dolton because, even though the contract was not completed within one year, public policy does not support lifetime employment contracts that are not in writing.

Question 76

[RV and bike deal] For his retirement, Milton wants to rent an RV and spend the summer travelling out West. Milton stops by Rudi's RV Heaven and Rudi tells him that he could rent an RV for the summer for $6,000. Milton, who had already researched rental costs, told Rudi he would agree to the price and also wanted to buy two of the bicycles Rudi showed him that were $100 each. Milton and Rudi shook hands and Milton said he would return the next day. When Milton returned, Rudi had the bicycles ready to go, but told Milton that the price for the RV was $8,000, not $6,000. Milton tells him that he cannot change the price because they had an enforceable agreement. Milton also tells him that he will not buy the bicycles, but Rudi tells him the agreement about the bicycles is enforceable and he wants Milton to pay him.
Does the agreement to purchase the bicycles for $100 each fall outside the statute of frauds and, thus, would likely be enforceable against Milton?

A) No, because the agreement is for the sale of goods over $500, which is within the statute of frauds and must be in writing.
B) No, because the agreement involved the lease of goods and must be in writing.
C) Yes, because the agreement involved the lease of goods, which need not be in writing.
D) Yes, because the contract can be performed within one year.
E) Yes, because the agreement is for the sale of goods under $500, which need not be in writing.

Question 77

[RV and bike deal] For his retirement, Milton wants to rent an RV and spend the summer travelling out West. Milton stops by Rudi's RV Heaven and Rudi tells him that he could rent an RV for the summer for $6,000. Milton, who had already researched rental costs, told Rudi he would agree to the price and also wanted to buy two of the bicycles Rudi showed him that were $100 each. Milton and Rudi shook hands and Milton said he would return the next day. When Milton returned, Rudi had the bicycles ready to go, but told Milton that the price for the RV was $8,000, not $6,000. Milton tells him that he cannot change the price because they had an enforceable agreement. Milton also tells him that he will not buy the bicycles, but Rudi tells him the agreement about the bicycles is enforceable and he wants Milton to pay him.
Does the agreement to rent the RV for $6,000 fall outside the statute of frauds and, thus, would likely be enforceable against Rudi?

A) No, because the agreement is for the sale of goods over $500, which is within the statute of frauds and must be in writing.
B) No, because the agreement involved the lease of goods and must be in writing.
C) Yes, because the agreement involved the lease of goods, which need not be in writing
D) Yes, because the contract can be performed within one year.
E) No, because the contract may not be performed within one year.

Question 78

On February 1, Dorian Winn, a publisher, hires Travis to write twenty books of a novel-series, each over a thousand pages long. Travis laughs, saying that it could take a year just to write one of the books. Travis also says that the oral contract for the project wouldn't be valid anyway. Is Travis correct?

A) Yes, if it is over $500.
B) Yes, because even if he worked around the clock for a year, it is highly unlikely the contract can be performed within a year.
C) Yes, because contracts that cannot be performed within a year fall within the statute of frauds and must be in writing.
D) No, because contracts that cannot be performed within a year are outside the statute of frauds.
E) No, because even though highly unlikely, the project can theoretically be completed within one year and does not have to be in writing.

Question 79

[Kids' debts] Marta agrees to buy Natasha's convertible, but Marta may be losing her job, in which case, her mother Lottie will pay pursuant to the terms of the contract Lottie signed. Jeb signs an agreement to pay for his son Byron's plastic surgery, if his son cannot afford the payments. Lucia agrees to sell her drumset to Marcus because Marcus' father said he will back the deal.
Theo and Quincy live on adjacent properties on a tree-lined city street. Theo placed stepping stones at the edge of his property to walk from the front to the backyard. Quincy objects to the stepping stones, claiming they are placed partially on his property. Theo points to the cherry tree Quincy planted, claiming the tree was planted on Theo's property and thus the tree and the cherries belong to him. Theo then tells Quincy that, if Quincy agrees that the property under the stepping stones belongs to Theo, then Theo will agree that the property under the cherry tree belongs to Quincy. Quincy agrees. Is their oral agreement likely to be enforceable?

A) No, because the value is over $500.
B) No, because it is a contract related to an interest in land and must be in writing.
C) The agreement involving the property under the cherry tree must be in writing because the tree is part of the land, but the agreement involving the property under the stepping stones need not be in writing.
D) Yes, because there was no money exchanged.
E) Yes, because it is a boundary dispute settled through the use of land.

Question 80

[Lake House] Damian has two houses, a house on the lake and a house in town. Frida wants to buy the house on the lake. Damian and Frida orally agree that Frida will buy the house on the lake for $300,000. Damian hurriedly writes out a contract providing that he would sell "his house" to Frida for $300,000. Damian signs the top of the document. Frida does not sign at all. No merger clause is included in the contract. Damian backs out of the contract, and Frida sues him. He tells the judge that the statute of frauds is left unsatisfied because he did not sign the document at the end and also because Frida did not sign at all. He also tells the judge that, at any rate, the agreement referred to the house in town, not the house on the lake; and that under the parol evidence rule, he had the right to identify the correct house.
Regarding Damian's assertion that under the parol evidence rule he had the right to identify the house referenced in the contract, which of the following is true?

A) Damian is correct.
B) Damian is incorrect because under the parol evidence rule, Frida, as the buyer, would be allowed to identify the subject matter in the event of a discrepancy.
C) Damian is incorrect because under the parol evidence rule, the judge would likely allow oral evidence regarding the house at issue in order to clarify an ambiguity.
D) Damian is incorrect because the parol evidence rule would not apply in situations involving an ambiguity.
E) Damian is incorrect because the parol evidence rule would not apply in the absence of a merger clause.