UT Bar Contracts and Sales 2

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?

Accepted Answer

No, because a merchant's firm offer is irrevocable for the stated period up to three months

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

No, because past consideration is not valid consideration

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

No, because the contract is for $500 or more and there is no writing or applicable exception

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

It is a counteroffer that the buyer may accept or reject, not a breach

Answer

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?

Accepted Answer

No, because the contractor had a preexisting duty to complete the work

Answer

Under the common-law preexisting duty rule, a promise to pay more for a duty already owed is unenforceable without new consideration.

(UT Bar) Utah Bar Exam Practice Test

(UT Bar) Utah Bar Exam Practice Test

UT Bar Contracts and Sales 2