Multiple Choice
Ellis agreed to paint Lee's house for $1500. A month before the performance was due, Lee called and told Ellis that she had changed her mind and was going to have her house stuccoed instead. Ellis insisted that they had a contract and that he was going to paint the house anyway. Lee repeated that she was not going to go through with it, but Ellis insisted the contract was still on. Before further steps could be taken by either party, Lee's house was destroyed by a freak airplane accident. Which one of the following statements describes the law applicable to these facts?
A) Ellis's conduct amounted to repudiation, and Lee could have sued for breach of contract immediately after the phone call.
B) Lee could have accepted Ellis's conduct as an anticipatory breach.
C) The contract has been discharged by frustration.
D) Ellis will be able to successfully claim as damages the amount that he would have made if the contract had been performed.
E) Lee's conduct did not amount to a breach since she told him a month before performance was due that she didn't want the house painted.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q159: Sam agreed to manufacture and supply 25
Q160: Explain how a fundamental breach affects the
Q161: On the theory that all land is
Q162: A student bought an elaborate smartphone for
Q163: In the case of an anticipatory breach<br>A)
Q165: If a supplier failed to honour a
Q166: A term in a contract that says
Q167: Which of the following is true with
Q168: In B.C., Mr. Buyer sued Mr. Seller
Q169: Which of the following is true with