True/False
Ravi, an art collector, had been made a standing offer by a gallery to purchase one of his paintings for $150,000. At shows and luncheons of the art community he had previously rejected the entreaties, knowing the painting to be worth at least twice as much. On the latest occasion of a luncheon at which Ravi was to deliver an art commentary to the guests, the gallery made its offer once more. To himself, Ravi considered the offer and concluded he could use the charitable tax relief that such a sale at a loss would generate. In the course of his speech, he acknowledged and accepted the offer. Two days later, Ravi's lawyer advised him that the purchasing gallery was NOT a charitable foundation, and no tax deduction for such a "donation" could be expected. Ravi then refused to sell the painting to the gallery. On the strength of the verbal agreement of purchase and sale made in the presence of witnesses, the gallery sued Ravi for breach of contract, and for a decree of specific performance to compel Ravi to sell it the painting. The gallery can successfully answer all of Ravi's case by raising the parol evidence rule.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q4: Joyce's son, Al, borrowed money from Verity
Q5: Painter and Hawe discussed the possibility of
Q6: Painter and Hawe discussed the possibility of
Q7: Cal has just co-signed a car loan
Q8: The parol evidence rule<br>A) widens the scope
Q10: The act of putting a contract under
Q11: Ravi, an art collector, had been made
Q12: Parties sometimes enter into verbal agreements but
Q13: Hrushka is the executor of her father's
Q14: In the presence of several witnesses, A