Bride’s wedding reception

Caterer agrees with Bride to cater Bride’s wedding reception for $12 per plate. On the wedding day, Caterer calls Bride saying that some things have come up, and she will have to charge $16 a plate in order to do the catering. Bride agrees. Which is true? a. The $16 is not enforceable because the $12 per plate was past consideration. b. The $16 is not enforceable because of a preexisting duty. c. The $16 is enforceable if the reason for it was beyond Caterer’s control. d. The $16 is not enforceable because it means the $12 was an illusory promise. e. The $16 is enforceable if Bride could have found another caterer before the wedding.

73) Cheryl hired Golden Construction Co. to build a house for her. The plans for the house were complex, and expert workmanship was required. After the house was completed, Cheryl liked it so much that she promised to pay Golden a $4,000 bonus. Later, Golden demanded the money, but Cheryl refused to pay it. Golden sues. What is the most probable result? a. Golden wins; the promise was used to entice Golden to do an outstanding job, which is adequate consideration. b. Cheryl wins; the promise is based on past consideration. c. Golden wins; the promise is based on past consideration, which is legally sufficient. d. Golden wins; the promise is based on changed circumstances which makes it enforceable.

74) Frank is a loyal employee who has spent much time above and beyond the call of duty promoting his employer’s company on weekends. Frank’s boss says to him, “Because of all this extra work you have done, you’ll get a $1,000 bonus next month.” Because of this statement, which of the following is true? a. The company is not obligated to pay him because the consideration is past consideration. b. The company is not obligated to pay because there was a preexisting duty. c. The company is obligated to pay because Frank has performed the extra work. d. The company is obligated to pay because there is an implied-in-law contract.

75) In order for someone to avoid a contract on the grounds of intoxication, the level of intoxication must have been: a. at or above the legal limit b. only high enough that he was able to notice it c. at least as high as that of the other party d. so great that he didn’t comprehend the nature of the agreement he was entering into Final Examination 18 BAM 317 Business Law

76) Marsha bought a car from Indy Auto Sales when she was 16. Marsha’s parents had given their consent for Marsha to purchase the car. However, in order to buy the car, Marsha lied about her age. A few months later, Marsha was intoxicated, driving too fast, and caused an accident with Mr. Jones. Marsha’s car was totally destroyed, and Mr. Jones’ car was badly damaged. Marsha wishes to minimize her liability for this accident. Which of the following best describes this situation? a. Marsha can disaffirm the auto sales contract, get back all her money, and disaffirm any damage done to Mr. Jones because she is a minor. b. Marsha must place Indy Auto Sales in status quo to disaffirm the contract. c. Because Marsha’s parents consented to Marsha buying the car, Marsha cannot disaffirm the contract. d. Because Marsha’s parents consented to Marsha buying the car, they are liable to both Indy Auto Sales and Mr. Jones.

77) Sally and Jeff are both minors. Sally buys Jeff’s motorcycle for $1,000, its reasonable value. Jeff spends $700 of this money. Later, Sally wrecks the motorcycle and it is a total loss. Sally wants her money back. Which of the following best describes this situation? a. Because Sally and Jeff are both minors, the contract is valid and fully enforceable. b. If Sally voids the contract, she must give Jeff back the wrecked motorcycle and $1,000. c. If Sally voids the contract, she must give Jeff only the wrecked motorcycle. d. The court will determine the relative sophistication of Jeff and Sally, and the one with the lesser sophistication will be allowed to void the contract. e. If Sally voids the contract, Jeff must return to her the entire $1,000.

78) At age 16, Phil bought a car from Acme Auto Co. for $2,500. Phil drove the car for about six months, and then he had an accident. The damage to the auto was $1,500. In addition, the value of the auto before the accident was only $2,000. The accident was not Phil’s fault. Phil wishes to disaffirm the contract. Which of the following best describes this situation? a. Because the car was damaged, Phil cannot disaffirm the contract. b. Phil can disaffirm the contract, but he can recover only $500 of his money. c. Phil can disaffirm the contract, but he can recover only $2,000 of his money. d. Phil can disaffirm the contract and recover the entire $2,500. e. Phil can disaffirm the contract, but he must first have the car repaired.