Exam 15: Consideration

A) When someone purchases a TV for $500 and later discovers it is worth less than $100.
B) When someone purchases a house and discovers later that property values in the neighborhood are falling.
C) When someone purchases a car which is later subject to a manufacturer recall.
D) The court never considers adequacy of consideration.
E) When someone divests himself of all of his assets for a very small amount of money and then declares bankruptcy.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) The bank is likely to prevail because no valid bilateral contract existed.
B) The bank is likely to prevail because Ursula only provided past consideration.
C) The bank is likely to prevail because Ursula was tainted by being Victor's girlfriend.
D) Ursula is likely to prevail because an enforceable unilateral contract exists based on her provision of information leading to the capture of Victor.
E) Ursula is likely to prevail because a valid bilateral contract existed.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) A liquidated debt is involved,and there is an accord and satisfaction.
B) An unliquidated debt is involved,and there is an accord but not satisfaction.
C) A liquidated debt is involved,and there is an accord but no satisfaction.
D) A liquidated debt is involved,and there is neither a satisfaction nor an accord.
E) An unliquidated debt is involved,and there is an accord and satisfaction.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) That because refraining from the conduct at issue benefited his character and health,the nephew could not recover.
B) That the nephew could recover,but only under promissory estoppel could he recover an amount compensating him for his reliance on the promise.
C) That no consideration was involved,and the nephew could not recover because the proof established that the nephew had no interest in engaging in the items at issue,and avoiding them was no detriment to him.
D) That no consideration was involved,and the nephew could not recover because the consideration from him did not consist of money or goods.
E) That the nephew could recover because he supplied consideration.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) Promissory performance
B) Quasi estoppel
C) Promissory agreement
D) Quasi agreement
E) Promissory estoppel

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) That consideration was present and that the defendant was liable to the plaintiff.
B) That the issue of consideration was irrelevant because consideration was not required in this type of contract.
C) That the defendant's promise to pay was past consideration insufficient to create a binding contract.
D) That consideration was lacking because the defendant was not bound to use the nickname.
E) That the defendant was required to pay the plaintiff only half of the percentage initially offered because a gift situation was involved.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) Because there will not be adequate consideration.
B) Because promising to do something you are obligated to do is an illusory promise.
C) Because of the legal doctrine of promissory estoppel.
D) There is no consideration when a party does what it is legally obligated to do.
E) Because there is no detriment.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) Yes,because the car which Joe accepted was worth less than the debt owed.
B) Yes,because the debt is Unliquidated debt.
C) No but Joe can sue Jennifer for selling Timmy a car with inadequate consideration.
D) Yes,because the debt is a liquidated debt.
E) No,because there is an exception to the rule regarding unliquidated debt when the debtor offers different performance.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) China is ranked near the middle.
B) China is ranked in the bottom 25.
C) China is rated in the top 10.
D) China is ranked last.
E) China is ranked in the bottom 10.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) Assuming the unforeseen circumstances rule does not apply,Bailey is not entitled to the extra $10 because she had a preexisting duty to bathe and groom Fluffy for $30.
B) Assuming the unforeseen circumstances rule does not apply,Bailey is not entitled to the extra $10 because past consideration was involved.
C) Bailey is entitled to the extra $10 because a valid bilateral contract existed.
D) Bailey is entitled to the extra $10 because a valid unilateral contract existed.
E) Assuming the unforeseen circumstances rule does not apply,Bailey is not entitled to the extra $10 because Keiko's promise to pay $30 was illusory.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) Valid consideration only in the employment context
B) Valid consideration only if a sale of goods is involved
C) Not valid consideration
D) Valid consideration because it is illusory consideration
E) Valid consideration because it is past consideration

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) If the court believes fraud or undue influence occurred
B) In every breach of contract case.
C) If the plaintiff petitions the court to consider adequacy of consideration
D) If the defendant petitions the court to consider adequacy of consideration
E) Never

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) The offeree but not the offeror
B) Parties on both sides of the contract
C) The acceptee but not the acceptor
D) The offeror but not the offeree
E) The acceptor but not the acceptee

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) Unforeseen circumstances and past consideration are exceptions,but additional work is not an exception.
B) Unforeseen circumstances and additional work are exceptions,but past consideration is not an exception.
C) Unforeseen circumstances are an exception,but additional work and past consideration are not exceptions.
D) Additional work is an exception,but unforeseen circumstances and past consideration are not exceptions.
E) Past consideration is an exception,but unforeseen circumstances and additional work are not exceptions.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) Sonia will win because the stylist had a preexisting duty to have Sonia's hair look as good as possible.
B) Sonia will win because there was no valid consideration in exchange for the highlighting.
C) The stylist will win because she did additional work in exchange for the extra payment;and,therefore,a valid unilateral contract existed.
D) The stylist will win because she did additional work in exchange for the extra payment;and,therefore,Sonia's promise was supported by valid consideration.
E) The stylist will win unless Sonia can show that she had previously received both a trim and highlights for $40.If she can prove that she previously received both for $40,then the past expectations rule applies.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) A liquidated debt is involved,and there is an accord and satisfaction.
B) A liquidated debt is involved,and there is neither a satisfaction nor an accord.
C) An unliquidated debt is involved,and there is an accord but not satisfaction.
D) An unliquidated debt is involved,and there is an accord and satisfaction.
E) A liquidated debt is involved,and there is an accord but no satisfaction.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

A) The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the basis that a recitation of nominal consideration of $1 along with consideration of love and affection was adequate consideration to support the agreements.
B) The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff on the basis that the plaintiff's previous deposit of funds into a joint checking account was sufficient consideration for the later agreements.
C) The court ruled in favor of the defendant on the basis that a recitation of nominal consideration of $1 along with love and affection was insufficient consideration to support a conveyance.
D) The court ordered the parties to divide on a 50/50 basis the assets in question based on their domestic partnership.
E) The court ruled in favor of the defendant on the basis that the plaintiff's previous deposit of funds into a joint checking account was insufficient consideration for the later agreements.

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer