Reference no: EM13964024

1. Roxy, while driving through Wyoming to her home in Montana, accidentally lost control of her car and drove it through a window into a store owned by Colt. Colt sued Roxy in a Wyoming court for damages to his store.

Will the Wyoming court likely be able to exercise jurisdiction over Roxy?

a) No, because Wyoming has no in personam (personal) jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot exercise its long arm statute in cases only involving automobile accidents.

b) No, because Wyoming has no in personam jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot justify minimum contacts in this case.

c) Yes, Wyoming can exercise in personam jurisdiction in this case because any state court has personal jurisdiction in every diversity of citizenship case.

d) Yes, because Wyoming can assert in personam jurisdiction over Roxy under the minimum contacts test.

2. Reg offered to sell his motorcycle to Thelma for $8,000. Thelma replied, "Your price is too high. I will purchase your motorcycle for $7,000". Reg agreed and they committed their agreement to writing. This transaction can be characterized as:

a) An enforce able contract because Reg's acceptance of The lma's offer was a clearly communicated acceptance.

b) An enforce able contract because The lma's counter offer was less than Reg's original offer.

c) An unenforceable contract because Thelma's offer was not the mirror image of Reg's original offer as is required under common law contract rules.

d) An unenforceable contract unless either Reg or Thelma is a merchant, as defined by the UCC, because sale of personal property contracts are valid only if one of the parties to the contract is a merchant.

3. Mary sued Don for negligence. Mary’s losses total $100,000. Under a contributory negligence system, if Mary is found to be contributorily negligent for her own injuries, what damages will Mary likely recover from Don?

a) None.

b) $100,000.

c) $100,000 minus the percentage of fault (e.g., 20%, 60%, etc.) for which Mary was responsible.

d) $100,000 minus the percentage of fault for which Mary was responsible, so long as Mary was not more than 50% responsible for the injuries.

4. Earl, a nonmerchant, offered to sell a chair to Isaac, a nonmerchant. Earl's house caught fire and destroyed the chair before Isaac accepted Earl's offer to buy the chair. As a result:

a) The destruction of the chair constitutes an automatic, valid revocation of the offer.

b) The fire does not automatically revoke the offer, but because neither Earl nor Isaac is a merchant, the offer is revocable at any time at Earl's option.

c) Earl did not validly communicate a revocation to Isaac, so Isaac still has the option of accepting Earl's offer; if Isaac accepts the offer, Earl must obtain a similar chair for Isaac or pay Isaac the equivalent value of the chair.

d) Earl's offer is automatically revoked by the fire, unless the offer was a firm offer.