CT Bar Contracts & Torts 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A driver texting behind the wheel strikes a cyclist who was jaywalking. The jury finds the driver 70% at fault and the cyclist 30% at fault. Connecticut follows:
- Pure contributory negligence — cyclist recovers nothing
- Pure comparative fault — cyclist recovers 70% of damages
- Modified comparative fault — cyclist recovers 70% if below 51% at fault (Correct answer)
- Last clear chance doctrine only
Correct answer: Modified comparative fault — cyclist recovers 70% if below 51% at fault
Connecticut follows modified (51%) comparative fault; a plaintiff may recover as long as their fault does not exceed the defendant's (i.e., plaintiff is not more than 50% at fault).
Question 2: When does a contract for the sale of goods over $500 fall outside the Statute of Frauds writing requirement?
- When both parties are merchants
- When the goods are specially manufactured and not suitable for resale in the ordinary course (Correct answer)
- When the offer is irrevocable
- When the buyer has received an invoice
Correct answer: When the goods are specially manufactured and not suitable for resale in the ordinary course
UCC § 2-201(3)(a) exempts specially manufactured goods not suitable for sale to others in the ordinary course of business if the seller has begun manufacture or committed for their procurement.
Question 3: A products liability plaintiff sues a manufacturer in strict liability. The manufacturer's best defense is that:
- It exercised reasonable care in the manufacturing process
- The plaintiff assumed the risk by using the product despite knowing of the defect (Correct answer)
- The product met all applicable industry safety standards
- The defect was foreseeable but unavoidable
Correct answer: The plaintiff assumed the risk by using the product despite knowing of the defect
In strict products liability, reasonable care is irrelevant, but assumption of risk (plaintiff voluntarily encountered a known risk) remains a valid defense.
Question 4: Under contract law, an anticipatory repudiation occurs when a party:
- Fails to perform on the due date
- Unequivocally indicates before performance is due that they will not perform (Correct answer)
- Requests a modification the other party refuses
- Performs in a defective manner
Correct answer: Unequivocally indicates before performance is due that they will not perform
Anticipatory repudiation is a clear, definite, unequivocal statement or conduct before the performance date indicating intent not to perform.
Question 5: In a defamation case, a private figure plaintiff suing a media defendant over a matter of public concern must prove:
- Actual malice (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard)
- Negligence as to the falsity of the statement (Correct answer)
- Strict liability — no fault element needed
- Intentional infliction of reputational harm
Correct answer: Negligence as to the falsity of the statement
After Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., private figure plaintiffs in matters of public concern need only prove negligence as to falsity, not actual malice.
Question 6: A hotel guest is injured when a hallway handrail collapses. The guest sues under negligence per se, alleging a building code violation. Negligence per se requires:
- Proof that the defendant knew of the violation
- That the plaintiff was in the class protected by the statute and the harm is of the type the statute was designed to prevent (Correct answer)
- Expert testimony establishing the applicable standard of care
- Evidence that reasonable persons would have installed a stronger rail
Correct answer: That the plaintiff was in the class protected by the statute and the harm is of the type the statute was designed to prevent
Negligence per se substitutes the statute for the reasonable person standard when the plaintiff is in the protected class and suffers the type of harm the statute aimed to prevent.
Question 7: Which doctrine allows a court to imply a promise to prevent a party from being unjustly enriched when no enforceable contract exists?
- Promissory estoppel
- Quasi-contract (implied-in-law contract) (Correct answer)
- Implied-in-fact contract
- Accord and satisfaction
Correct answer: Quasi-contract (implied-in-law contract)
Quasi-contract (unjust enrichment) allows restitutionary recovery when one party confers a benefit on another without a valid contract and it would be unjust to allow retention of the benefit.
CT Bar Contracts & Torts 3
A driver texting behind the wheel strikes a cyclist who was jaywalking.
The jury finds the driver 70% at fault and the cyclist 30% at fault.
Connecticut follows: