Week 6 quiz 4 w answers

docx

School

Regent University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

PARA-420

Subject

Law

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by ChefSteel4369

Score for this quiz: 100 out of 100 Submitted Nov 27 at 3:42pm This attempt took 24 minutes. Question 1 10 / 10 pts When does the Parol Evidence Rule apply? to just written evidence to just oral evidence Correct! equally under common law to written and oral evidence within scope of application it is an evidence rule that allows parties to void a contract Question 2 10 / 10 pts A term used to describe when some of the terms are vague and the contract can reasonably have more than one meaning. Correct! Ambiguity Vagery Confusion Parol Evidence Question 3 10 / 10 pts Under the plain meaning rule Correct! A completely integrated writing that is clear on its face will be enforced according to the plain meaning of the contract.

An oral contract will be interpreted based upon the plain meaning of the words that the parties used when they formed the agreement. A court must use the plain meaning of the words used by the parties to see whether there was consideration to form a contract. A court must use the plain meaning of the words used by the parties to see whether there was mutual assent to form a contract. Question 4 10 / 10 pts Which of the following is a source of evidence that can be used to show parties' intent Course of dealings Usage of trade Course of performance Correct! All of the above Question 5 10 / 10 pts This is the term used to refer to the past practices of the parties concerning previous transactions and as a way to show what they meant to do this time they are in a contract. Correct! Course of Dealing Usage of Trade

Mailbox Rule Promissory Estoppel Question 6 10 / 10 pts The warranty of merchantability Correct! Is implied by law, unless otherwise agreed to Must be expressly agreed to by the parties to be part of a contract Only applies to the sale of land Is an illegal and unconscionable term in a contract Question 7 10 / 10 pts Two teachers signed a written, integrated agreement for an exchange of school lesson plans. The agreement described itself as “completely integrated” and included all of the terms one might expect for such an agreement. As the teachers were signing the agreement, the teachers orally agreed that they would each check with their students, and, if both groups of students hated the idea, they would not go forward with the deal. Would evidence of the oral agreement be admissible? Correct! Yes. The agreement is integrated but not completely integrated as to the term. Yes. The term does not contradict any term of the parties’ writing. No. The term is inconsistent with the parties’ writing. No. The agreement is

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

completely integrated. Correct. “Where the parties to a written agreement agree orally that performance of the agreement is subject to the occurrence of a stated condition, the agreement is not integrated with respect to the oral condition.” See Rs. 2d § 217. Here, the oral agreement was a condition (an evident not certain to occur but which must occur before performance is due) and is therefore within this rule. Although the agreement appears to be completely integrated, Rest. 2d § 217 requires a conclusion that the agreement is not completely integrated as to this term. Question 8 10 / 10 pts Seller and Buyer agreed to the following terms in a written contract: “Seller will sell Buyer 53 acres of land, and Buyer agrees to pay $4,000 for the land plus the total cost of preparing the land for sale. This writing is a complete, final, and exclusive statement of the parties’ agreement.” Both Buyer and Seller are farmers, and they had entered into similar transactions with each other and therefore were familiar with the costs of preparing land for sale after it has been used, as Seller’s property has been used, for harvesting vegetables. When Seller was ready to sign over the 53 acres to Buyer, Buyer handed seller a check for $6,000. Seller responded: “The check should be for $7,000. We have both been through transactions like this one before, and the cost for preparing similar land for sale has always been $3,000.” Buyer refused to pay the extra $1,000. Seller sued for breach of contract and sought to introduce evidence of the parties’ prior transactions. Will the court conclude that the parol evidence rule bars this evidence? Correct! No. The court can look at the parties’ past contracts in determining the meaning of the writing . No. The evidence of the past dealings is a consistent additional term.

Yes. The parties’ agreement is unambiguous and therefore evidence of the parties’ past contracts is not admissible. Yes. The parties’ written agreement is completely integrated and therefore evidence of the parties’ past transactions is not admissible. Correct. “Agreements and negotiations prior to or contemporaneous with the adoption of a writing are admissible in evidence to establish the meaning of the writing, whether or not integrated.” See Rs. 2d § 214(c). If a contract is ambiguous, evidence of course of dealings between the parties is admissible to help resolve that ambiguity. Because “total costs” is ambiguous, it is appropriate for the court to look at the parties’ past dealings in order to interpret the contract. Question 9 10 / 10 pts Owner owed Handyman $50 from a prior transaction. Owner and Handyman orally agreed that Handyman would clean Homeowners rain gutters, and, if Owner paid $100, that payment would cover both the price of gutter cleaning and the $50 Buyer owed. A day later, the parties signed a written agreement. The $50 debt was not mentioned in the written agreement, which was one page in length and did not contain an integration clause. Handyman cleared the rain gutters, and Owner paid the $100. A week later, Handyman called Owner and demanded payment of the $50 debt. Owner said, “We agreed that the $50 would be covered when I paid you $100 for the rain gutter cleaning.” Handyman said, “That is not what the written agreement said.” Handyman brought a claim against Owner for the $50. Buyer sought to introduce the oral agreement that payment of the $100 would cover both the rain gutter cleaning and the $50 debt. Will this evidence be admitted over a parol evidence rule objection by Handyman? Correct! Yes. The oral agreement will be admissible if a court determines that it is consistent with the written agreement and the $50 debt might naturally be omitted from the final written agreement. Yes. The oral agreement is admissible to resolve an ambiguity in the written agreement. No. The oral agreement is not admissible because the written agreement is completely integrated. No. The oral agreement is not admissible because the written agreement is unambiguous.

Correct. “Evidence of a consistent additional term is admissible to supplement an integrated agreement unless the court finds that the agreement was completely integrated. An agreement is not completely integrated if the writing omits a consistent additional agreed term which is such a term as in the circumstances might naturally be omitted from the writing.” See Rs. 2d § 216(1), (2)(b). In this situation, the term dealing with the $50 credit towards the buyer’s debt can be seen as naturally omitted because usually a services contract does not include provisions dealing with prior transactions. Therefore, the court should be able to look at the oral agreement as a supplement to the written agreement. Question 10 10 / 10 pts Landlord, which owns several restaurant properties, leased restaurant premises to Tenant, which owns a chain of restaurants. The lease included, among others, the following provisions: 6. Landlord will pay for electricity. 11. Tenant will pay for gas or fuel used in storing and preparing food. 12. The parties note that Tenant is contemplating installing an electric, sub-zero refrigerator that will require substantial electricity. If Tenant installs the sub-zero refrigerator (an expensive type of refrigerator that requires a lot of electricity) in its restaurant, Tenant shall install a special meter and pay for the electricity used by the refrigerator. The dictionary defines fuel as “a material (such as coal, oil, or gas) that is burned to produce heat or power.” In the restaurant industry, electricity is uniformly considered a type of fuel. In operating Tenant’s restaurant, Tenant used both the electric and gas stoves already in place in the restaurant. Landlord refused to pay for the electricity used by Tenant’s electric stoves. Tenant sued Landlord for breach of contract. Will Tenant win? Correct! Yes. The contract, interpreted as a whole, communicates that the Landlord will pay for electricity used in any way, including electricity used in storing or preparing food. Yes. Landlord expressly agreed to pay for electricity. No. The contract requires Tenant to pay for “fuel” and the relevant trade usage requires Tenant to pay for the electricity.

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

No. The contract requires the Tenant to pay for electricity if Tenant installs a sub-zero refrigerator. Correct. The word fuel has a trade usage that includes electricity and both parties are in the trade. However, the better argument is that paragraph 12 communicates that the parties are not following the trade usage because Tenant expressly agreed to track and pay for the electricity used if Tenant were to buy a sub-zero refrigerator. If Tenant had agreed to pay for all electricity used for storing food, the provision would have been senseless. See Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 202, Illustration 10. Quiz Score: 100 out of 100 Previous Next Submission Details:

Week 6 quiz 4 w answers

Related Documents