FYLSX Defenses to Contract Enforceability 5

Question 1

A contract requires a party to perform an act that was legal when the contract was formed but becomes illegal before performance is due. The defense available is:

Accepted Answer

Supervening illegality, which discharges the obligor's duty to perform

Answer

When performance becomes illegal after contract formation due to a change in law, the doctrine of supervening illegality discharges the affected party's contractual duties.

Question 2

Grace is pressured to sign a contract by her domineering adult son, who controls her finances and daily life, even though no explicit threats were made. The appropriate defense is most likely:

Accepted Answer

Undue influence, because her son's dominant position over her substituted his will for hers

Answer

Undue influence arises where a dominant party in a confidential or special relationship overcomes the weaker party's free will without resorting to explicit threats.

Question 3

Under the CISG or UCC, when a merchant fails to object to a written confirmation that differs from the oral agreement, and both parties are merchants, what is the effect on the Statute of Frauds requirement?

Accepted Answer

The written confirmation can satisfy the Statute of Frauds against the merchant who fails to object within a reasonable time

Answer

Under UCC §2-201(2), a written confirmation sent between merchants satisfies the Statute of Frauds against the receiving merchant who fails to object within 10 days.

Question 4

Two parties enter a contract for the sale of widgets. Unknown to either party, the factory producing the widgets burned down the day before contracting. The best defense to enforcement is:

Accepted Answer

Mutual mistake of existing fact, because both parties contracted under a false assumption about the subject matter

Answer

When both parties contract under a mutual mistake about a material existing fact (here, that the factory still existed), the contract may be voided.

Question 5

Which party may assert mental incapacity as a defense when a person contracts during a lucid interval despite a history of mental illness?

Accepted Answer

No party, because contracts made during lucid intervals are valid and enforceable

Answer

A person who contracts during a lucid interval — a period when they have full cognitive capacity — forms a valid, enforceable contract despite a general history of mental illness.

(FYLSX) Baby Bar Exam Practice Test

(FYLSX) Baby Bar Exam Practice Test

FYLSX Defenses to Contract Enforceability 5