CL611_mod2modelanswer-2
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Purdue Global University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
611
Subject
English
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
6
Uploaded by ProfGuineaPigPerson512
CL611 Contracts II MODULE 2 ESSAY QUIZ - MODEL ANSWER Evaluation Approach
To learn the most from your experience of writing this essay, use the P
erformance, E
valuation, A
djustment (PEA) three-step self-assessment and improvement process when reviewing the model answer. This will enable you to maximize what you learn from writing this essay, and to improve both your essay-writing skills and your knowledge of the relevant substantive law. You completed the Performance
step when you wrote your essay. To help you with your Evaluation
of your performance, find the score the essay received in the grading rubric (below) and note the description of why an essay would receive that score. The score tells you in general terms how the essay correlates to the expectations for the assignment. Note that when taken by themselves, some parts of the essay might be of higher or lower quality; the score received is the overall score for the essay taken as a whole. Next, compare your answer to the model answer. In doing so, you must not merely look for what you got right or wrong. It is important for you to critically examine
why you got things right or wrong. The issues that affected your performance this time will likely affect your next essay - unless you take steps to correct them. This is the point of the Adjustments
step, and the reason why we ask you to use the S
ELF
-
A
SSESSMENT F
ORM
that follows: to take what you have discovered during your evaluation and determine how to use it to improve on your next essay (or rewrite). To be clear, you will need to self-assess for each IRAC in the essay--both the "big" IRACs that form the structure of the entire essay, and
the "mini" IRACs that you used to develop the major points in your analysis within one of the big IRACs--so please make multiple copies of the form. Doing this will give you an understanding of what you need to do, on the level of detail needed to make the impact on your next essay. (Of course, once you identify corrective steps, you must then actually implement them, evaluate your next essay to see if they helped, and make
further adjustments as needed.) If after completing this process you still have questions, please feel free to email me. Grading Rubric Score Description 50
Essay identifies the subject area and makes some attempt at answering the question. 55
Essay identifies at least one major issue.
Essay does not articulate most rules of law correctly.
Essay does not provide analysis.
Essay does not provide a conclusion. 60
Essay identifies some issues.
Essay articulates some rules of law correctly.
Essay attempts to provide analysis but merely repeats facts instead of explaining which facts meet which elements of the rules.
Essay does not provide a conclusion for each issue presented. 65
Essay identifies several but not all major issues.
Essay articulates most rules correctly.
Essay provides some analysis by explaining how some of the facts meet the elements of the rules but misses some important facts or inferences.
Essay provides conclusions that are not supported by the analysis for each issue. 70
Essay identifies all major issues.
Essay articulates all rules correctly.
Essay provides analysis by explaining how each fact meets each element of the rules.
Essay provides conclusions supported by the analysis for each issue. 75+
Essay identifies all major issues.
Essay articulates all rules correctly.
Essay provides depth of analysis in explaining how each fact meets each element of the rules.
Essay provides conclusions supported by the analysis for each issue.
Essay is generally well-written.
S
ELF
-A
SSESSMENT F
ORM
ISSUE:
Did I identify and prioritize all key issues and frame each in the form of a question? If not, why not? (Select all that apply; note which are most important.) ___ I did not read the facts closely enough to notice that an issue was raised. ___ I did not understand the law so I did not see that the issue was raised. ___ I saw the issue but didn’t think it was important enough to discuss.
___ I saw the issue, but simply forgot to write about it. ___ I saw the issue, but didn’t have enough time to write ab
out it. ___ Other What can I do to improve my performance in this category in the future?
(Be specific, such as: reviewing particular topics, doing practice problems, refining my outline of potential issues, taking the time to better organize my answer, etc.) ____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
RULE:
Did I succinctly and accurately state the rules of law relevant to the issues? If not, why not? (Select all that apply; note which are most important.) ___ I did not have the rule of law memorized. ___ I did not understand the elements of/exceptions to the applicable rule. ___ I did not understand the facts to see how they implicated the rule. ___ I knew and understood the rule, but simply forgot to write about it. ___ Other What can I do to improve my performance in this category in the future?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
ANALYSIS: Did I link each relevant fact to the element of law at issue? If not, why not? (Select all that apply; note which are most important.) ___ I did not read the facts closely enough to see how they related to an issue. ___ I did not understand the facts to see how they related to an issue. ___ I merely repeated the facts but did not go further to explain how the facts showed why an element of an issue was or wasn’t met.
___ I failed to identify and/or write about what each party might assert. ___ Other What can I do to improve my performance in this category in the future?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
CONCLUSION:
Did my analysis lead to a clear, well-reasoned conclusion? If not, why not? ___ I did not provide a clear and concise conclusion for each issue. ___ My conclusion was not supported by my analysis. What can I do to improve my performance in this category in the future?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Some other questions to consider in order to improve your answer for next time:
1. Did I organize my time well? Did I use my time appropriately to read the call of the question, read the fact pattern, organize my response, and write my answer? 2. Did I organize my answer well? Did I follow the road map I created? 3. Did I utilize the IRAC format? Did I use a separate IRAC format for each issue? 4. Did I make any grammatical mistakes? Typos? Misspelled words? MODEL ANSWER CONTRACTS II ESSAY 1 –
MODULE 2 [NOTE TO STUDENTS: The model answer uses the boldfaced labels “ISSUE,” “RULE,” “ANALYSIS,” and “CONCLUSION” for illustrative purposes, to help highlight these aspects of the Model Answer for you. You should not include these boldfaced labels in your essay answers.] [ISSUE] 1. Did Able and Baker validly modify their contract when Able agreed to pay the additional $1,000? [RULE –
PART 1] A. Applicable law. Since this contract involves services Baker was to perform for Able, the modern common law would apply to resolve any contractual issues between the parties. [In every Contracts essay, the rule really has two components: the controlling law (that is, is this contract governed by the UCC or by common law), and the relevant rule of law. The best approach is to articulate the controlling law first, since it has the potential to alter the relevant rule of law depending on whether the UCC or the common law is controlling.]
[RULE –
PART 2] Formation of contract. There cannot be a valid modification of a contract unless a contract was initially validly formed. The facts state that Able and Baker entered into a written contract whereby Baker was to dig a well in exchange for $3,000. Therefore a contract clearly was formed. [Although formation is clear, it is still an indispensable part every analysis. After all, you cannot modify a contract that doesn’t exist.
That said, don’t worry about going into detail –
a summary statement like this is sufficient to do the job.]
[ANALYSIS] B. Valid modification. A modification is an agreement to alter or amend an existing contract. To be valid a modification must be the product of good faith bargaining and must be supported by new consideration. [This section is organized like a “mini
-
IRAC,”
giving the rule (the requirements for modification), and then unpacking each of the elements of that rule.]
1. Good faith bargaining. Baker requested the change it the contract (the payment of an additional $1,000 for equipment rental) as a result of encountering conditions unlike any he had ever encountered previously. Since this was therefore an unforeseeable condition Baker was making this request in good faith. Although Able “reluctantly” agreed to Baker’s request, there is no indication that he was forced or coerced into doing so. Therefore, in all probability the modification agreement will be deemed to be the product of good faith bargaining. 2. New Consideration. Consideration involves a bargained-for exchange that constitutes a legal detriment to each promisee. Under the agreement as modified, Able was to pay Baker $4,000 instead of the $3,000 stated in the initial contract. So, there was a legal detriment to Able in having to pay the additional $1,000. However, under the initial contract Baker was obligated to dig a well on Able’s property. Under the agreement as modified, Baker is still promising only to dig the well. In other words, as a result of the initial contract Baker was under a pre-existing duty to dig the well, and there would therefore be no consideration to support the modification. [The general rule is that a pre-existing duty cannot serve as consideration, since the party who already had that duty was required to perform regardless of whether the present contract had been formed.]
3. Exception to Consideration. An agreement to modify an executory contract is binding if the modification is fair and equitable in view of circumstances not anticipated when the contract was made. Clearly, the presence of solid rock would be such an unanticipated condition since Baker had been digging wells in the area for over 10 years and had never encountered solid rock before reaching an adequate water source. The modification covered only the actual cost of the rental of equipment needed to dig the well. This would seem to be fair and equitable under the circumstances. Therefore, under this exception to the pre-existing duty rule the modification would appear enforceable. 4. Defense. A modification is subject to all formation defenses. However, none would appear to be applicable. Even though the agreement between Able and Baker was oral, the contract as modified does not fall within any of the provisions of the statute of frauds. In addition, it is permissible for a written contract to be modified by oral agreement. [CONCLUSION]
Therefore, the contract appears to have been validly modified and Able would be obligated to pay the additional $1,000. [ISSUE] Can Baker recover any additional money from Able? [Given the general nature of the second interrogatory, it will help the grader to follow your writing if you have a transitional section like this to focus in on the specific amount in dispute and the nature of the dispute (not to mention help clarify your thinking about the issues that are actually in play in the question).] III. Recovery? As discussed above, since the contract was validly modified Able would be obligated to pay Baker $4,000 for completing the well. However, Able paid Baker only $2,500. Whether Able would be liable to pay any additional amount rests with an interpretation of his sending a check marked “payment in full” and Baker cashing the check.
[RULE] A. Accord and satisfaction. An accord is a form of a modification whereby substituted performance is accepted in place of a pre-existing duty. A satisfaction is the performance of the accord. [ANALYSIS]
When Able sent Baker a check for $2,500 marked “payment in full”, he was making an offer to an accord. Baker’s cashing of the check may operate as both an acceptance of the offer to an accord and a satisfaction if certain conditions are met. 1. Offered in full settlement. The offer to an accord must be made in full settlement of any obligations owed. Since Able wrote on the check “payment in full”, this indicates that is was meant to be in full settlement of the obligations between the parties. Therefore, this requirement is met. 2. Attempted reservation of rights. Baker attempted to cash the check and reserve rights to possibly sue for additional compensation by crossing out the words “payment in full” before cashing the check. However, the majority of jurisdictions do not allow a person receiving such a check to preserve right by either so stating or crossing out language indicating that the check is offered in full settlement of all obligations. So, Baker’s act of crossing out the language “payment in
full” by itself would not reserve additional rights against Able. 3. Consideration. Since as accord is a form of a modification, it must be supported by new consideration to be enforceable. The consideration can arise in a situation such as this if there exists a good faith dispute between the parties and the check is an attempt to settle the dispute. Here, there was no dispute between the parties. Able was upset because of the strong odor emanating from the well, but he discovered that Baker was not responsible for odor. In other words, Able knew that Baker had properly and fully performed the contract by digging the well and was thus entitled to full payment. Since there was no dispute between the parties as to how much was owed to Baker, there would be no consideration to support Baker’s agreement to accept a lesser amount in settlement of the work he performed for Able. [CONCLUSION]
Baker would be entitled to sue Able for an additional $1,500.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help