Business Law 280 - Business Law I » Spring 2022 » Quiz on consideration, promissory estoppel, and quasi-contract

Need help with your exam preparation?

Existing Quiz Clients Login here
Question #1
Alan and Bill have a written contract whereby Alan agrees to sell Bill a plot of land for $100,000. Later, without terminating the first contract, the parties modify the deal so that Alan sells Bill the same plot of land for $125,000. The second agreement:
A.   is not a contract because Alan's promise is illusory.
B.   is not a contract because there is no consideration for Bill's promise.
C.   is not a contract because there is no consideration for Alan's promise.
D.   is not a contract because written contracts for the sale of land cannot be modified.
Question #2
Gift promises are not enforceable because they lack:
A.   legality
B.   agreement
C.   consideration
D.   capacity
Question #3
Bill is 25 years old. His uncle promised in writing to pay him $2,000 if Bill would not drink alcohol for one year. Bill was able to successfully complete a year without drinking alcohol, however, his uncle has refused to pay Bill as agreed. The uncle claims that because Bill suffered no detriment by refraining from alcohol, his non-drinking does not constitute legal consideration therefore no contract was formed. If Bill sues his uncle, Bill will:
A.   win because Bill had a right to drink alcohol.
B.   lose because consideration must have monetary value.
C.   win because no consideration is needed in this contract.
D.   lose because refraining from an action can never be considered legal consideration.
Question #4
Chica, a women's clothing store, held a "prize drawing" for a $500 shopping spree on Saturday that it had advertised throughout the week. Participation in the drawing required being at the store by noon and completing a form that included personal information and placing it in a box. The information would then be put into a database for marketing purposes. "Fashion consultants" offering merchandise for sale greeted customers arriving at the store on Saturday morning. Joy was the winner of the drawing. Has she given "consideration" for the prize?
A.   No, she gave no legal value to Chica.
B.   Yes, she made an effort to come to the store and give information that was for the store's use.
C.   Yes, unless the store was conveniently located.
D.   No, unless she purchased an item from one of the "fashion consultants."
Question #5
Lisa promised to pay David $1000 if he would paint her house on Saturday, and he agreed. However, he didn't listen closely to her address, and on Saturday, arrived at the neighbor's house and painted it. The neighbors were on vacation out of town and didn't learn of the painting until they arrived home. When David tried to collect payment, the neighbors refused to pay. Can David recover?
A.   Yes, David can recover because there is legal value in his services.
B.   No, David cannot recover because the contact with the neighbors was not in writing.
C.   Yes, David can recover because it would be unjust enrichment for the neighbors to have a freshly painted house without paying for it.
D.   No, David cannot recover because while he conferred a benefit, the neighbors did not knowingly accept it.
Question #6
Which of the following is true regarding quasi-contract and promissory estoppel?
A.   Quasi-contract requires that the promisee reasonably relied on the promissor.
B.   Both quasi-contract and promissory estoppel must be in writing.
C.   Promissory estoppel requires a promise from the promissor to the promisee.  
D.   Both quasi-contract and promissory estoppel require that a contract be properly formed between the parties.

Need help with your exam preparation?

Existing Quiz Clients Login here