UT Bar Contracts and Sales 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A merchant emails another merchant a signed offer to sell 500 widgets at $10 each, stating the offer will be held open for 90 days. Thirty days later, the seller attempts to revoke. Under UCC Article 2, is the revocation effective?
- No, because a merchant's firm offer is irrevocable for the stated period up to three months (Correct answer)
- Yes, because no consideration was given to keep the offer open
- Yes, because firm offers are only binding for 30 days
- No, because all written offers are irrevocable until expressly rejected
Correct answer: No, because a merchant's firm offer is irrevocable for the stated period up to three months
Under UCC 2-205, a signed written firm offer by a merchant is irrevocable without consideration for the stated time, not to exceed three months.
Question 2: A homeowner promises to pay a landscaper $5,000 after the landscaper has already voluntarily cleared the homeowner's storm-damaged yard. The homeowner later refuses to pay. Under the majority common-law rule, is the promise enforceable?
- No, because past consideration is not valid consideration (Correct answer)
- Yes, because the landscaper conferred a measurable benefit
- Yes, because moral obligation always supports a promise
- No, because landscaping contracts must be in writing
Correct answer: No, because past consideration is not valid consideration
A promise made in exchange for services already performed lacks bargained-for consideration under the majority rule.
Question 3: A buyer and seller agree orally to the sale of goods for $800. The buyer later refuses to perform, asserting the statute of frauds. Is the contract enforceable?
- Yes, because the UCC statute of frauds applies only to sales of goods for $500 or more that lack a writing, and here no writing exists so it is unenforceable
- Yes, because oral contracts for goods are always enforceable
- No, because the contract is for $500 or more and there is no writing or applicable exception (Correct answer)
- No, because all sales contracts must be notarized
Correct answer: No, because the contract is for $500 or more and there is no writing or applicable exception
UCC 2-201 requires a writing for sales of goods priced at $500 or more, and no exception (part performance, merchant confirmation, admission, or specially manufactured goods) applies here.
Question 4: A buyer orders 100 red shirts. The seller ships 100 blue shirts with a note saying the blue shirts are offered only as an accommodation. What is the legal effect of the shipment?
- It is a counteroffer that the buyer may accept or reject, not a breach (Correct answer)
- It is an acceptance and a breach of contract
- It is an acceptance creating a contract for blue shirts
- It is a rejection terminating all negotiations
Correct answer: It is a counteroffer that the buyer may accept or reject, not a breach
Under UCC 2-206, shipment of nonconforming goods with a seasonable notice of accommodation is a counteroffer, not an acceptance and breach.
Question 5: A contractor agrees to build a garage for $30,000. Midway through, the contractor demands an extra $5,000 to finish, citing no new circumstances, and the owner agrees. Under the common law, is the owner's promise to pay the extra $5,000 enforceable?
- No, because the contractor had a preexisting duty to complete the work (Correct answer)
- Yes, because contract modifications never require consideration
- Yes, because the owner voluntarily agreed
- No, because construction contracts cannot be modified
Correct answer: No, because the contractor had a preexisting duty to complete the work
Under the common-law preexisting duty rule, a promise to pay more for a duty already owed is unenforceable without new consideration.
Question 6: A written contract for the sale of a business states it is the complete and final agreement of the parties. The buyer seeks to introduce evidence of a prior oral agreement that contradicts the price term. Is the evidence admissible?
- No, because the parol evidence rule bars prior agreements that contradict a fully integrated writing (Correct answer)
- Yes, because oral agreements always supplement written ones
- Yes, because price terms are never final
- No, because oral testimony is inadmissible in all contract disputes
Correct answer: No, because the parol evidence rule bars prior agreements that contradict a fully integrated writing
The parol evidence rule excludes prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict the terms of a complete integration.
Question 7: A seller delivers goods that the buyer rightfully rejects for nonconformity. The contract delivery date has not yet passed. What right does the seller have under the UCC?
- The right to cure the defect by seasonably notifying the buyer and delivering conforming goods before the deadline (Correct answer)
- No rights; rejection terminates the contract immediately
- The right to demand the buyer accept the goods at a discount
- The right to sue the buyer for wrongful rejection
Correct answer: The right to cure the defect by seasonably notifying the buyer and delivering conforming goods before the deadline
Under UCC 2-508, a seller may cure a nonconforming tender if the time for performance has not yet expired and the seller gives seasonable notice.
UT Bar Contracts and Sales 2
A merchant emails another merchant a signed offer to sell 500 widgets at $10 each, stating the offer will be held open for 90 days.
Thirty days later, the seller attempts to revoke.
Under UCC Article 2, is the revocation effective?