THEME:OFFER/ACCEPTANCE/CONSIDERATION

Questions 1 • 4 are based on these facts.On November 1, the following notice was posted in aprivately operated law school:

"The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research,offers to any student at this school who wins thecurrent National Obscenity Law Competition theadditional prize of $500. All competing papersmust be submitted to the Dean's office before MayI.·

(The National Competition is conducted by an outsideagency, unconnected with any law school.) Studentread this notice on November 2, and thereupon inten-sified his effort to make this paper on obscenity law,which he started in October, a winner. Student alsoleft on a counter in the Dean's office a signed notesaying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competi-tion offer." This note was inadvertently placed inStudent's file and never reached the Dean or anyfaculty member personally. On the following April I,the above notice was removed and the following sub-stituted therefore:

The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the Na-tional Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn.

Student's paper was submitted through the Dean's of-fice on April 15. On May I, it was announced that Stu-dent had won the National Obscenity Law Competi-tion and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused topay anything.

1. Assuming that the faculty's notice of November 1was posted on a bulletin board or other conspicuousplace commonly viewed by all persons in the lawschool, such notice constituted a

(A) preliminary invitation to deal, analogous tonewspaper advertisements for the sale of goodsby merchants

(C) preliminary invitation, because no offeree wasnamed therein

(D) promise to make a conditional, future gift ofmoney

(B) No, because it became irrevocable after areasonable time had elapsed

(C) No, becanse of Student's reliance, prior to April1, of the offer

(D) No, unless Student became aware of the April!posting and removal before submitting thepaper

(C) unilateral contract or bilateral contract at theofferee's option

(D) unilateral contract which ripened into a bilateralcontract, binding on both parties, as soon asStudent intensified his effort in response to theoffer

(B) enforceable by Student's personal representativeeven if Student had been killed in an accident onApril 16

(C) not enforceable on policy grounds because itproduced a noncommercial agreement betweena student and his teachers, analogous tointramural family agreements and informal so-cial commitments

(D) not enforceable because Student, after enteringthe National Competition in October, was al-ready under a duty to perform to the best of hisability

Brill saved the life of Ace's wife, Mary, who there-after changed her will to leave Brill $1,000. However,upon Mary's death she had no property except an un-divided interest in real· estate held in tenancy by theentirety with Ace. The property had been purchasedby Ace from an inheritance.

After MaIY died, Ace signed and delivered to Brillthe following instnunent: "In consideration of Brill'ssaving my wife's life and his agreement to bring noclaims against my estate based on her will, I herebypromise to pay Brill $1,000."

Upon Ace's death, Brill filed a claim for $1,000.Ace's executor contested the claim on the ground thatthe instrument was not supported by sufficient con-sideration.

5. In most states, would the act of Brill saving Mary'slife be regarded as sufficient consideration for Ace'spromise?

(A) Yes, because Ace was thereby morally obligatedto Brill

(B) Yes, because Ace was thereby materiallybenefited

(C) No, because Ace had not asked Brill to save her(1) No, because the value of Brill's act was too un-

certain

6. With respect to the recital that Brill had agreed notto file a claim against Ace's estate, what additionalfact would most strengthen Brill's claim?

(A) Brill's agreement was made in a writing hesigned .

(B) Brill reasonably believed he had a valid claimwhen the instrumentwas signed.

(C) Mary had contributed to accumulation of the"real property

(D) Brill paid Ace $1 when he received the instru-ment.

7. On which of the following theories would it be mostlikely that Brill could recover?

(A) Ace and Brill have made a compromise.(B) Ace must give restitution for benefits it would

be unjust to retain.(C) Ace is bound by promissoty estoppel.(D) Ace executed a binding unilateral contract.

8. In September 1970, Joe Smith, twehty-three yearsold and unmarried, was beginning his third year of lawschool. At that time he entered into a written leasewith Landlord for the lease of an apartment for thenine-month school year ending on May 31, 1971, at$150 a month payable in advance on the first day ofeach month. Joe paid the rent through December 1,but did not pay the amount due on JanUaIY 1, nor hashe paid any since.

On JanUaIY 15, 1971, Landlord threatened to evict Joeif he did not pay the rent. That night Joe called hisfather, Henty, and told him that he did not have themoney with which to pay the "rent nor did he have themoney with which to pay his tuition for the secondsemester. Henty told Joe that if he agreed not tomarty until he finished law school, Henty would payhis tuition, the $150 rent that was due on JanUaIY 1,the rent for the rest of the school year, and $100 amonth spending money until he graduated. Joe, whowas engaged to be married at the time, agreed that hewould not marty until after he graduated.

On JanUaIY 16, Henty wrote to Landlord the followingletter which Landlord received on Janu&ty 17:"Because of the love and affection which I bear my son,Joe, if you do not evict him, I will pay the rent he nowowes you and will pay you his $150 rent on the firstday of each month through May, 1971. If I do not hearfrom you by JanUaIY 25, I will assume that this ar-rangement is all right with you. (Signed) HenrySmith."

Landlord did not reply to Henty's letter and he did notevict Joe. Henty _died suddenly on JanUaIY 26. Joecontinued to live in the apartment through May 31,1971, but paid no more rent. He did not marry andgraduated from law school. Henty had paid Joe's tui-tion for the spring semester but had paid no money toeither Landlord or Joe.

Joe's claim against Henty's estate having been deniedby the executor, Joe brought ~t against the estate inJune, 1971, asking for ajudgment of $400 ($100 spend-ing money for each of the months, FebruaIY throughMay). In this action, Joe probably will be

(A) successful(B) unsuccessful, because his contract with Henry

was illegal(C) unsuccessful, because HenlY's death terminated

the offer(D) unsuccessful, because his contract with Henry

was not in writing and signed by Henty.

9. Brown contended that Green owed him $6,000 ..Greentlenied that he owed Brown anything. Tired ofthe dispute, Green eventually signed a promissory noteby which he promised to pay Brown $5,000 in settle-ment of their dispute.

In an action by Brown against Green on the promis-sory note, which of the following, if true, would affordGreen the best defense?

(A) Although Brown honestly believed that $6,000was owed by Green, Green knew that it was notowed.

(B) Although Brown knew that the debt was notowed, Green honestly was in doubt whether itwas owed.

(C) The original claim was based on an agreement,which the Statute of Frauds required to be inwriting.

(D) The original claim was an action on a contract,which was barred by the applicable Statute ofLimitations

10. Professor James said to Mary·Digit, president ofthe X-L Secretarial Service, "Since'you folks have donegood typing work for me in the past, I promise to bringyou the manuscript for my new book."

The following Monday James, foregoing the services ofanother secretarial service, brought chapter one to theX-L office but Mary Digit refused to take it, saying thatthey were all booked up for three weeks.

Which of the following factS or inferences would bemost helpful in an action by James against X-L?

(A) ''When" and, "Wouldn't that be nice" implied apromise to type the manuscript

(B) James relied on Mary Digit's statement bybringing the manuscript to X-L.

(C) X-L had done good work for James in the past(D) James had foregone the services of another

secretarial service.

On May 1Ohner telegraphed Byer, "Will sell youany or all of the lots in Grover subdivision at $5,000each. Details follow in letter." The letter contained allthe necessary details concerning terms of payment, in-surance, mortgages, etc., and provided, "This offerremains open until June 1." On May 2, after he hadreceived the telegram but before he had received theletter, Byer telegraphed ahner, "Accept your offer withrespect to lot 101." Both parties knew that there werefifty lots in the Grove subdivision and that they werenumbered 101 through 150.

11. For this question only, assume that Ohner andByer were bound by a contract for the sale of lot101 for $5,000, that on May 3 Ohner telephonedByer that because he had just discovered that ashopping center was going to be erected adjacent tothe Grove subdivision, he would "have to have$6,000 for each of the lots including 101," that Byerthereupon agreed to pay him $6,000 for lot 101, andthat on May 6 Byer telegraphed, "Accept your offerwith respect to the rest of the lots." Assuming thattwo contracts were formed and that there is no con-trolling statute, Byer will most likely be required topay

(A) only $5,000 for each of the fifty lots(B) only $5,000 for lot 101, but $6,000 for the

remaining forty-nine lots(C) $6,000 for each of the fifty lots(D) $6,000 for lot 101, but only $5,000 for the

remaining forty-nine lots

12. For this question only, assume that on May 5 Oh-ner telephoned Byer that he had sold lots 102through 150 to someone else on May 4 and thatByer thereafter telegraphed ahner, "Will take therest of the lots." Assume further that there is nocontrolling statute. In action by Byer ~ Oh-ner for breach of contract, Byer pro1iibiY will-----

(A) succeed, because Ohner had promised him thatthe offer would remain open until June 1

(B) succeed, because Ohner's attempted revocationwas by telephone

(C) not succeed, because Byer's power of acceptancewas terminated by ahner's sale of the lots toanother party

(D) not succeed, because Eyer's power of acceptancewas terminated by an effective revocation