Reference no: EM132114501

1. The following three questions are based on the following scenario: Jones goes to a clothing store and orders $1000 worth of clothing on credit. The salesperson writes up a receipt describing the terms of the deal, but Jones does not sign anything. Three days later, the store makes a partial delivery of $750 worth of clothing, which Jones accepts. One day later, however, Jones decides that he doesn't want the clothing. When the store insists that he has to pay the full $1000, Jones argues that he doesn’t have to pay because of the Statute of Frauds.  Which of the following is the most correct?

A. The Statute of Frauds does not apply to this contract.

B. The Statute of Frauds applies because the clothing is Specially Manufactured Goods.

C. The Statute of Frauds applies because this is a contract for the sale of goods for a contract price of more than $500.

D. The Statute of Frauds applies because this is a contract for the sale of goods for a contract price of $500 or more.

2. Same scenario: Jones goes to a clothing store and orders $1000 worth of clothing on credit. The salesperson writes up a receipt describing the terms of the deal, but Jones does not sign anything. Three days later, the store makes a partial delivery of $750 worth of clothing, which Jones accepts. One day later, however, Jones decides that he doesn't want the clothing. When the store insists that he has to pay the full $1000, Jones argues that he doesn’t have to pay because of the Statute of Frauds.  Which of the following is correct?

A. The writing in this case is not adequate because Jones is the party to be charged and he did not sign the receipt.

B. The writing in this case is not adequate because a receipt cannot serve as a writing under the Statute of Frauds.

C. The writing in this case is adequate because it is signed by the clothing store salesperson, who is the party to be charged.

D. None of the above is correct.

3. Same scenario: Jones goes to a clothing store and orders $1000 worth of clothing on credit. The salesperson writes up a receipt describing the terms of the deal, but Jones does not sign anything. Three days later, the store makes a partial delivery of $750 worth of clothing, which Jones accepts. One day later, however, Jones decides that he doesn't want the clothing. When the store insists that he has to pay the full $1000, Jones argues that he doesn’t have to pay because of the Statute of Frauds. Which of the following is correct?

A. Jones can get out of the contract because it violates the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable.

B. Jones will have to pay $1000 because of the "main purpose" or "leading objection" exception to the Statute of Frauds.

C. Jones will have to pay $750 because he accepted the partial delivery.

D. None of the above is correct.

4. The following five questions are based on the this scenario: Johnny, a 16 year-old boy, contracts to buy a used car for $1,000 from Dave. Johnny pays Dave $300 as a down payment and agrees to pay the balance in $100 monthly installments over the course of the next seven months. Dave transfers his right to receive the balance of the purchase price ($700) to Jen. In return, Jen pays Dave $500 cash. Dave's transfer of the balance of the purchase price to Jen is called:

A. A novation.

B. An integration.

C. An assignment.

D. A delegation.

5. Same scenario: Johnny, a 16 year-old boy, contracts to buy a used car for $1,000 from Dave. Johnny pays Dave $300 as a down payment and agrees to pay the balance in $100 monthly installments over the course of the next seven months. Dave transfers his right to receive the balance of the purchase price ($700) to Jen. In return, Jen pays Dave $500 cash. Which of the following is correct?

A. Johnny is the obligee.

B. Dave is the obligee.

C. Jen is the delegator.

D. Jen is the third party beneficiary.

6. Same scenario: Johnny, a 16 year-old boy, contracts to buy a used car for $1,000 from Dave. Johnny pays Dave $300 as a down payment and agrees to pay the balance in $100 monthly installments over the course of the next seven months. Dave transfers his right to receive the balance of the purchase price ($700) to Jen. In return, Jen pays Dave $500 cash. Dave's contract with Johnny falls within the Statute of Frauds.

True

False

7. Same scenario: Johnny, a 16 year-old boy, contracts to buy a used car for $1,000 from Dave. Johnny pays Dave $300 as a down payment and agrees to pay the balance in $100 monthly installments over the course of the next seven months. Dave transfers his right to receive the balance of the purchase price ($700) to Jen. In return, Jen pays Dave $500 cash. If Johnny becomes insolvent and cannot pay Jen, Dave is liable and has to pay Jen.

True

False

8. Change the facts slightly: Now let's assume that when Jen tries to enforce the contract, 16 year-old Johnny disaffirms on the grounds of lack of capacity (his minority). In this case:

A. Johnny will not have to pay Jen.

B. Jen has recourse against Dave because he impliedly warranted that the claim was valid.

C. Both A & B are correct.

D. None of the above is correct.