Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Acceptance Rules

20 questions · exam conditions

0:00

Acceptance RulesQuestion 1 of 20

On May 1, a corporation's board of directors passed a resolution offering a $10,000 bonus to any employee who obtained a professional certification by August 1. The resolution was posted on the company's internal website. An employee, who had been planning to take the certification exam anyway, saw the notice. She immediately paid the non-refundable exam fee, spent two months studying, and passed the exam on July 15. On July 1, the corporation faced unexpected financial difficulty and posted a notice on the same internal website revoking the bonus offer. The employee did not see the revocation notice until after she took the exam.

Is the employee entitled to the $10,000 bonus? Select one.

No, because the corporation revoked the offer before the employee completed performance.

No, because the employee intended to take the exam even before the offer was made.

Yes, because the offer was for a unilateral contract, and it became irrevocable once the employee began performance.

Yes, because the revocation was not communicated to the employee in the same manner as the offer.

← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Acceptance Rules

Practice Acceptance Rules in Bar Exam (Uniform) with focused quiz questions that help you check what you know, review explanations, and build confidence with test-style prompts.

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Acceptance Rules, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for Bar Exam (Uniform).

How to use this quiz

Try each quiz question before looking at the correct answer. Use the explanations to review missed ideas, then come back to similar questions until the pattern feels familiar.

All questions

Question 1

Is the employee entitled to the $10,000 bonus? Select one.

No, because the corporation revoked the offer before the employee completed performance.
No, because the employee intended to take the exam even before the offer was made.
Yes, because the offer was for a unilateral contract, and it became irrevocable once the employee began performance. (correct answer)
Yes, because the revocation was not communicated to the employee in the same manner as the offer.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The bonus offer was for a unilateral contract, which could be accepted only by completing the performance (obtaining the certification). Under the modern view, once an offeree begins performance in a unilateral contract, the offeror cannot revoke the offer. Here, the employee began performance by studying and paying the exam fee after seeing the offer. Therefore, the corporation's power to revoke was suspended, and the employee is entitled to the bonus upon completing performance. A is incorrect because the offer became irrevocable once performance began. B is incorrect because the employee's pre-existing intention is irrelevant as long as she knew of the offer and was motivated in part by it when performing. D is incorrect because the revocation of a general offer to the public or a large group can be made by the same means used to make the offer (here, the internal website), and it is effective even if a particular offeree does not see it. However, the revocation was ineffective for the separate reason that performance had already begun.

Question 2

A homeowner offered a painter $5,000 to paint her house. The offer was made in a signed writing that stated, 'You must accept this offer by painting the house by the end of the month.' The painter, intending to accept, purchased $1,000 worth of specialized paint for the project. The next day, before the painter had begun painting or communicated with the homeowner, the homeowner called the painter and said, 'I've found a cheaper option. I revoke my offer.' The painter argues that a contract was formed when he purchased the paint.

Was the homeowner's revocation effective? Select one.

No, because the painter accepted the offer by beginning performance when he purchased the paint.
No, because the painter's purchase of paint created an option contract based on detrimental reliance.
Yes, because the offer sought acceptance by full performance, and the homeowner revoked before performance was complete.
Yes, because the offer specified acceptance only by performance, and mere preparation does not constitute the beginning of performance. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The offer specified acceptance by performance (a unilateral contract). In a unilateral contract, an option contract is created once the offeree begins performance, making the offer irrevocable. However, mere preparation to perform, such as purchasing supplies, is not considered the beginning of performance. Because the painter had only prepared to perform, he had not yet begun performance. Therefore, the homeowner was free to revoke the offer. A is incorrect because purchasing paint is preparation, not the start of performance itself. B is incorrect because while detrimental reliance can make an offer irrevocable under promissory estoppel, the reliance here (purchasing paint) is part of the preparation for the bargained-for performance, not a separate basis for an option contract in this context. C is incorrect because if performance had begun, the homeowner could not have revoked.

Question 3

A car enthusiast saw a vintage sports car for sale and sent the owner an email offering to buy it for $75,000. The owner emailed back, 'I can't sell it for less than $80,000.' The enthusiast replied, 'The most I can go is $78,000.' The owner then received an offer from a third party for $82,000, which she accepted. The next day, before learning of the sale to the third party, the enthusiast emailed the owner, 'Okay, I'll take it for $80,000.'

Has the enthusiast formed a contract with the owner? Select one.

Yes, because the owner's statement about $80,000 was a continuing offer that the enthusiast accepted.
Yes, because the owner did not communicate a revocation to the enthusiast before the acceptance.
No, because the owner's statement about $80,000 was an invitation to negotiate, not an offer.
No, because the enthusiast's counteroffer of $78,000 terminated the owner's offer of $80,000. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. The owner's email stating, 'I can't sell it for less than $80,000,' constituted a counteroffer, which terminated the enthusiast's original $75,000 offer. This new offer of $80,000 created a power of acceptance in the enthusiast. However, the enthusiast then responded, 'The most I can go is $78,000.' This was a new counteroffer, which operated as a rejection of the owner's $80,000 offer and terminated it. Therefore, when the enthusiast later tried to accept the $80,000 price, there was no offer left to accept. A is incorrect because the enthusiast's own counteroffer terminated the $80,000 offer. B is incorrect because revocation is irrelevant when the offer has already been terminated by a counteroffer. C is incorrect because the owner's statement, made in direct response to an offer, was specific enough to be considered a counteroffer.

Question 4

Your client, a general contractor, received a bid from a subcontractor to perform electrical work on a project for $100,000. The bid was the lowest received. Relying on this bid, your client submitted a master bid for the entire project to the developer. Your client's master bid was accepted by the developer. The next day, before your client had formally accepted the subcontractor's bid, the subcontractor contacted your client and stated that they had made a mathematical error and needed to withdraw their bid.

What is your client's strongest argument that the subcontractor is bound to their bid? Select one.

The subcontractor's bid constituted a firm offer under the UCC and was irrevocable.
The subcontractor's bid was accepted when your client used it in the master bid.
The subcontractor is bound under a theory of promissory estoppel because your client relied on the bid. (correct answer)
The subcontractor cannot revoke due to a unilateral mistake unless the contractor knew of the mistake.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. In the construction bidding context, a general contractor's reliance on a subcontractor's bid can make the bid irrevocable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel (or detrimental reliance). The subcontractor should have reasonably expected the general contractor to rely on the bid in submitting the master bid, the general contractor did in fact rely on it, and injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the promise. A is incorrect because construction contracts are generally for services, not goods, so the UCC's firm offer rule does not apply. B is incorrect because using a subcontractor's bid in a master bid is not equivalent to acceptance of the bid; the general contractor is not bound to the subcontractor until there is a formal acceptance. D describes a defense to formation (unilateral mistake), but the primary basis for enforcing the subcontractor's bid here is promissory estoppel.

Question 5

A clothing retailer sent a purchase order to a textile mill for 5,000 yards of cotton fabric, specifying a price and delivery date. The textile mill, a merchant, sent back a timely acknowledgment form that confirmed the quantity, price, and delivery date, but included a pre-printed clause on the back that stated: 'Interest at 1.5% per month will be charged on all overdue invoices.' The retailer received the form but did not read the back and did not object. The mill shipped the fabric, and the retailer accepted it but paid the invoice 60 days late.

Is the retailer liable for the interest charge? Select one.

No, because the interest clause was on the back of the form and was not seen by the retailer.
No, because the interest clause materially altered the contract.
Yes, because the retailer accepted the goods, thereby accepting all terms in the acknowledgment form.
Yes, because the interest clause is a standard additional term that does not materially alter the contract. (correct answer)

Explanation: The correct answer is D. This is a UCC § 2-207 'battle of the forms' problem between two merchants. The mill's acknowledgment was an acceptance. The interest charge is an additional term. Between merchants, it becomes part of the contract unless the offer limited acceptance to its terms, the term materially alters the contract, or the offeror objects. A standard interest charge on overdue invoices is a common commercial term and is generally not considered a material alteration that would cause surprise or hardship. Therefore, it becomes part of the contract. A is incorrect because a party is generally bound by the terms of a contract they receive, regardless of whether they read them. B is incorrect because this type of clause is typically not considered a material alteration. C is incorrect because acceptance of the goods forms a contract under § 2-207(3), but the terms are determined by § 2-207(2), not by a 'last shot' acceptance of all terms.

Question 6

A landowner and a prospective buyer were negotiating the sale of a commercial property. After several rounds of talks, the landowner sent the buyer a signed letter on September 1, stating, 'I will sell you the property for $1.2 million. This is my final offer.' On September 5, the buyer saw the landowner at a local restaurant. The landowner was having lunch with a well-known real estate developer, and the buyer overheard the landowner say, 'The deal is done, the property is yours.' The buyer, assuming the landowner was talking about the developer, immediately went back to his office and sent a signed fax to the landowner stating, 'I accept your offer of September 1.'

Has the buyer effectively accepted the landowner's offer? Select one.

Yes, because the buyer accepted the offer before receiving any direct communication of revocation from the landowner.
No, because the landowner's statement to the developer constituted an act inconsistent with the offer, which the buyer learned of. (correct answer)
Yes, because the offer did not state a time for acceptance, so the buyer had a reasonable time to accept.
No, because the landowner's statement overheard by the buyer was not sufficiently definite to constitute a revocation.

Explanation: When you encounter offer and acceptance questions, focus on whether the offeror has revoked the offer before acceptance occurs. Revocation can happen through direct communication or through the offeree's knowledge of acts inconsistent with the offer. Here, the landowner made a valid offer on September 1. However, when the buyer overheard the landowner telling the developer "The deal is done, the property is yours," this constituted an act inconsistent with keeping the original offer open. The buyer reasonably interpreted this as the landowner selling the property to someone else, which would make the original offer impossible to fulfill. Under contract law, when an offeree learns of the offeror's inconsistent acts that effectively revoke the offer, the offer terminates even without direct communication. Answer A is incorrect because revocation doesn't require direct communication—learning of inconsistent acts is sufficient. The buyer did receive notice of revocation through overhearing the landowner's statement. Answer C misses the point entirely. While offers without time limits remain open for a reasonable time, this offer was revoked before the buyer's acceptance, making the timing issue irrelevant. Answer D is wrong because the landowner's statement was sufficiently definite. Telling someone "the deal is done, the property is yours" clearly indicates the property has been sold to that person, making it impossible to honor other offers. Study tip: Remember that revocation can occur indirectly. If an offeree learns the offeror has taken action inconsistent with the offer (like selling to someone else), the offer is effectively revoked, even without direct notice.

Question 7

An accountant sent a signed letter to a business owner offering to provide tax preparation services for the year for a flat fee of $5,000. The letter stated, 'If I do not hear from you to the contrary by the 15th of this month, I will assume you accept and will begin the preliminary work.' The business owner received and read the letter but did not respond. The two parties had a prior course of dealing for the last three years where the accountant made the same offer and the owner's silence was treated as acceptance.

Is there a contract between the accountant and the business owner? Select one.

No, because an offer cannot be accepted by silence.
Yes, because the business owner had a duty to reject the offer due to their prior course of dealing. (correct answer)
No, because the offeror cannot unilaterally impose a duty on the offeree to speak.
Yes, because the accountant began preliminary work in reliance on the business owner's silence.

Explanation: Contract formation questions involving silence as acceptance require you to understand when the general rule against silence has exceptions. Typically, an offeree's silence cannot constitute acceptance, but courts recognize specific circumstances where silence becomes legally significant. Here, the key factor is the parties' established course of dealing over three years. When parties have consistently treated silence as acceptance in their prior business relationship, this creates a reasonable expectation that silence will continue to have the same meaning. The business owner's pattern of accepting identical offers through silence establishes a duty to speak up if they intended to reject this offer. Their continued silence, given this history, reasonably indicates acceptance. Looking at the wrong answers: (A) states the general rule but ignores the important exception for established courses of dealing between parties. While silence normally cannot accept an offer, this rule has recognized exceptions. (C) is partially correct that offerors generally cannot impose speaking duties on offerees, but it overlooks that the parties' own conduct over three years created this duty—the accountant didn't unilaterally impose it. (D) focuses on the accountant's reliance, but the contract formation doesn't depend on whether preliminary work actually began; it depends on whether silence constituted acceptance given their history. When you see silence-as-acceptance questions, always look for prior dealings between the same parties. The general rule against silence has exceptions, and established business relationships where silence previously meant acceptance is the most common exception you'll encounter on contract law questions.

Question 8

A tech startup offered a job to a software engineer. The offer letter specified a salary and start date. The engineer replied via email: 'I accept your generous offer. I am looking forward to working with the team. I do assume that, as we discussed, I will be able to work from home two days per week.' The company's policy was silent on remote work, and the hiring manager had mentioned it only as a possibility during interviews. The company, believing this was a new demand, withdrew the offer.

Was the engineer's email a valid acceptance? Select one.

No, because the statement about remote work made the acceptance conditional.
Yes, because the statement about remote work was merely a comment on the terms, not a condition of acceptance. (correct answer)
No, because the statement about remote work was a new term that created a counteroffer.
Yes, because the engineer stated 'I accept' before mentioning the remote work issue.

Explanation: Contract acceptance questions test whether a response constitutes a valid acceptance or creates a counteroffer. The key distinction lies in whether the responder is conditioning their acceptance on new or modified terms, or simply commenting on terms they believe were already agreed upon. The engineer's email represents a valid acceptance because the remote work statement functions as a comment on previously discussed terms rather than a new condition. The engineer used language indicating an assumption about existing understanding ("as we discussed"), suggesting they believed remote work was already part of the offer terms from their interview conversations. This differs from conditioning acceptance on a new demand. Option A is incorrect because the remote work statement wasn't conditional—the engineer didn't say "I accept if I can work remotely" but rather assumed it was already understood. Option C fails because this wasn't introducing a new term but referencing prior discussions, even if those discussions were preliminary. The engineer reasonably believed they were clarifying existing understandings. Option D misses the point entirely—the order of statements doesn't determine validity; rather, it's whether the acceptance is unconditional regarding the actual offer terms. The company's withdrawal was premature because reasonable parties could interpret the engineer's response as accepting the written offer while noting assumptions about previously discussed possibilities. The hiring manager had indeed mentioned remote work, giving the engineer grounds for their assumption. Watch for acceptance questions that hinge on whether someone is adding conditions versus clarifying understood terms. Context from prior negotiations matters in determining a response's legal effect.

Question 9

On Monday, a manufacturer sent a signed letter to a supplier offering to purchase 1,000 specialized widgets for $50,000. The letter stated, 'This is a firm offer, which will remain open until Friday.' On Tuesday, the supplier mailed a letter to the manufacturer stating, 'I reject your offer.' On Wednesday morning, before the manufacturer received the rejection letter, the supplier called the manufacturer and said, 'I've changed my mind, I accept your offer for the widgets.' The manufacturer, who had not yet acted on the rejection, replied, 'Excellent, we have a deal.' The manufacturer received the supplier's rejection letter on Thursday.

Is there an enforceable contract between the manufacturer and the supplier? Select one.

No, because the supplier's rejection was effective when mailed on Tuesday, terminating the offer before the purported acceptance on Wednesday.
No, because the manufacturer's offer was a firm offer under the UCC, which became irrevocable only upon the supplier's acceptance.
Yes, because the acceptance was communicated to the manufacturer before the rejection was received, thereby forming a contract. (correct answer)
Yes, because the manufacturer's firm offer was irrevocable until Friday, and the supplier accepted within that time frame.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. Under the mailbox rule, an acceptance is typically effective upon dispatch. However, when a party sends a rejection and then an acceptance, the rule is that whichever communication is received first is effective. Here, the supplier's acceptance was communicated by phone and received by the manufacturer on Wednesday, before the mailed rejection was received on Thursday. Therefore, a contract was formed on Wednesday. A is incorrect because the mailbox rule does not apply to a rejection in this context; the rejection is effective only upon receipt. B is incorrect because a firm offer is irrevocable for the stated period without any action from the offeree. D is partially correct that the offer was irrevocable, but it does not correctly identify the reason why the acceptance was effective despite the previously mailed rejection.

Question 10

Is there an enforceable contract between the manufacturer and the supplier? Select one.

No, because the supplier's rejection was effective when mailed on Tuesday, terminating the offer before the purported acceptance on Wednesday.
No, because the manufacturer's offer was a firm offer under the UCC, which became irrevocable only upon the supplier's acceptance.
Yes, because the acceptance was communicated to the manufacturer before the rejection was received, thereby forming a contract. (correct answer)
Yes, because the manufacturer's firm offer was irrevocable until Friday, and the supplier accepted within that time frame.

Question 11

On July 1, a landowner sent a signed, written offer to a developer to sell a parcel of land for $500,000. The offer stated it was open until July 15. On July 5, the developer paid the landowner $100 for the landowner's promise not to revoke the offer before July 15. On July 8, the developer mailed a letter to the landowner accepting the offer. On July 9, the developer learned that a zoning change was denied, making the land less valuable, and immediately sent a fax to the landowner stating, 'Disregard my letter of July 8. I hereby reject your offer.' The landowner received the fax on July 9 and received the acceptance letter on July 10.

What is the legal status of the developer's attempt to purchase the land? Select one.

A contract was formed on July 8 when the developer dispatched the acceptance. (correct answer)
A contract was not formed because the rejection was received by the landowner before the acceptance.
A contract was not formed because the developer's power of acceptance terminated upon sending the fax on July 9.
A contract was formed on July 10 when the landowner received the acceptance letter, as the offer was irrevocable.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The developer paid consideration ($100) to keep the offer open, creating a valid option contract. Under the mailbox rule, an acceptance is generally effective upon dispatch. Here, the acceptance was dispatched on July 8, forming the contract at that time. The subsequent rejection sent on July 9 cannot undo an acceptance that has already taken effect. The fact that the rejection was received first is irrelevant because the contract had already been formed when the acceptance was dispatched. B and C are incorrect because a properly dispatched acceptance cannot be undone by a subsequent rejection. D is incorrect because acceptance was effective on dispatch (July 8), not receipt (July 10).

Question 12

Is the retailer liable for the interest charge? Select one.

No, because the interest clause was on the back of the form and was not seen by the retailer.
No, because the interest clause materially altered the contract.
Yes, because the retailer accepted the goods, thereby accepting all terms in the acknowledgment form.
Yes, because the interest clause is a standard additional term that does not materially alter the contract. (correct answer)

Question 13

Is the employee entitled to the $10,000 bonus? Select one.

No, because the corporation revoked the offer before the employee completed performance.
No, because the employee intended to take the exam even before the offer was made.
Yes, because the offer was for a unilateral contract, and it became irrevocable once the employee began performance. (correct answer)
Yes, because the revocation was not communicated to the employee in the same manner as the offer.

Question 14

An art gallery mailed an offer to a private collector to sell a painting for $200,000. The offer did not specify a means of acceptance. On Tuesday, the collector mailed a letter to the gallery unconditionally accepting the offer. On Wednesday, before the gallery received the letter, the gallery's owner called the collector and stated, 'I have to withdraw the offer for the painting; I've decided to keep it in my personal collection.' The collector informed the owner that an acceptance was already in the mail.

Was a contract for the sale of the painting formed? Select one.

Yes, because the collector's acceptance was effective when dispatched on Tuesday. (correct answer)
No, because acceptance by mail was not a reasonable means of acceptance in this situation.
No, because the gallery revoked its offer before receiving the collector's acceptance.
Yes, because the gallery's offer became irrevocable once the collector dispatched the acceptance.

Explanation: This question tests your understanding of contract formation timing, specifically when acceptances become effective under the mailbox rule. When you see questions about offer and acceptance timing, focus on whether the mailbox rule applies and any exceptions to it. Under the mailbox rule, an acceptance is generally effective when properly dispatched (sent), not when received by the offeror. Here, the collector mailed an unconditional acceptance on Tuesday. Since the original offer didn't specify a required means of acceptance, mail was a reasonable method (especially given that the offer itself came by mail). This means the acceptance was effective Tuesday when dispatched, forming the contract before the gallery's attempted revocation on Wednesday. Looking at the wrong answers: Choice B is incorrect because mail was reasonable here—the gallery used mail for its offer, making mail an appropriate response method. Choice C misapplies the timing rules; while the gallery did attempt to revoke before receiving the acceptance, the contract was already formed when the acceptance was dispatched Tuesday. Choice D uses incorrect terminology—offers don't become "irrevocable" when acceptances are dispatched; rather, the contract is formed at that moment, making any subsequent revocation ineffective. Choice A correctly identifies that the acceptance was effective when dispatched on Tuesday, creating a binding contract before the attempted revocation. Study tip: Remember that the mailbox rule protects offerees by making acceptances effective upon dispatch. However, revocations are only effective when received. This timing difference often creates the fact pattern for exam questions—always check whether acceptance was dispatched before revocation was received.

Question 15

Was the engineer's email a valid acceptance? Select one.

No, because the statement about remote work made the acceptance conditional.
Yes, because the statement about remote work was merely a comment on the terms, not a condition of acceptance. (correct answer)
No, because the statement about remote work was a new term that created a counteroffer.
Yes, because the engineer stated 'I accept' before mentioning the remote work issue.

Question 16

A farmer offered to sell his tractor to his neighbor for $30,000. The neighbor was interested but unsure. The farmer, who was a merchant of farm equipment, gave the neighbor a signed, written note that said: 'I offer you my tractor for $30,000. I promise to hold this offer open for you for 14 days.' The note did not mention consideration. Five days later, the farmer sold the tractor to another party for $35,000. The next day, the neighbor, who was unaware of the sale, called the farmer to accept the $30,000 offer.

Does the neighbor have a valid claim for breach of contract against the farmer? Select one.

No, because the farmer's promise to hold the offer open was not supported by consideration.
No, because the farmer indirectly revoked the offer by selling the tractor to a third party.
Yes, because the farmer's signed writing created a firm offer that could not be revoked for 14 days. (correct answer)
Yes, because the neighbor accepted the offer before receiving notice of any revocation from the farmer.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. The transaction involves the sale of goods (a tractor), and the farmer is a merchant. Under UCC § 2-205, an offer by a merchant to buy or sell goods in a signed writing which by its terms gives assurance that it will be held open is not revocable, for lack of consideration, during the time stated. This is a 'firm offer.' The farmer's signed note constituted a firm offer, making it irrevocable for the stated 14 days. The farmer's sale to another party was a breach of that promise, and the neighbor's subsequent acceptance within the 14-day period formed a contract. A is incorrect because under the UCC firm offer rule, consideration is not required. B is incorrect because an irrevocable offer cannot be revoked, either directly or indirectly. D is correct that the neighbor accepted before receiving notice, but the key reason a contract was formed is that the offer was irrevocable under the firm offer rule.

Question 17

A custom furniture maker offered to build a dining table for a client for $8,000. The client mailed a check for $4,000 to the furniture maker with a note that said, 'This is a deposit to show my commitment. I accept your offer, but I'll need you to guarantee delivery by December 1, as I am hosting a holiday party.' The offer was silent as to a delivery date. Upon receiving the check and note, the furniture maker deposited the check but did not respond to the client. The furniture maker then began work on the table.

Is there a contract, and if so, does it include the December 1 delivery date? Select one.

Yes, a contract was formed when the furniture maker deposited the check, and the delivery date is included. (correct answer)
Yes, a contract was formed, but the delivery date is not included because it was a material alteration of the original offer.
No, because the client's response was a counteroffer that was never properly accepted by the furniture maker.
No, because the furniture maker's silence cannot constitute acceptance of the modified terms.

Explanation: The correct answer is A. The client's response contained both an acceptance and an additional term (delivery date). While this could be viewed as a counteroffer under the mirror image rule, the furniture maker's conduct of depositing the check and beginning work constituted acceptance of the client's terms. By depositing a check that was explicitly tied to modified terms in the accompanying note, the furniture maker manifested assent to those terms. The act of cashing a check with conditions attached is generally viewed as acceptance of those conditions. B is incorrect because the furniture maker's conduct shows acceptance of the delivery term. C and D are incorrect because depositing the check is a clear manifestation of acceptance, not mere silence.

Question 18

A winery, a merchant, sent a written offer to a restaurant, also a merchant, to sell 50 cases of its new vintage of wine for $20,000. The offer was signed by the winery's owner and stated that it would be held open for 30 days. The offer did not specify the method of acceptance. The restaurant owner wrote back a week later, 'We accept your offer. We will require the wine to be shipped in temperature-controlled trucks.' Temperature-controlled shipping is standard industry practice for fine wines but would add a small cost. The winery, believing this new term was a rejection, did not respond and sold the wine to another buyer.

Did the restaurant's response form a binding contract? Select one.

No, because the restaurant's response was a counteroffer under the common law mirror image rule.
No, because the additional term for temperature-controlled trucks materially altered the offer.
Yes, because the restaurant provided a definite expression of acceptance, and the additional term became part of the contract. (correct answer)
Yes, because the winery made a firm offer that could not be rejected by the addition of a minor term.

Explanation: The correct answer is C. This is a sale of goods between merchants, governed by UCC § 2-207. The restaurant's response was a definite and seasonable expression of acceptance, forming a contract. The new term (temperature-controlled trucks) is an additional term. Between merchants, such terms are included unless the offer limits acceptance to its terms, the new term materially alters the contract, or objection is made. A requirement for temperature-controlled shipping, especially if it is industry standard, is unlikely to be a material alteration. Therefore, the term is included in the contract. A is incorrect because the mirror image rule does not apply to sales of goods. B is incorrect because a term reflecting standard industry practice is generally not considered a material alteration. D is incorrect because a firm offer can still be rejected or be subject to the rules of UCC § 2-207; its primary effect is to make the offer irrevocable for a time.

Question 19

What is your client's strongest argument that the subcontractor is bound to their bid? Select one.

The subcontractor's bid constituted a firm offer under the UCC and was irrevocable.
The subcontractor's bid was accepted when your client used it in the master bid.
The subcontractor is bound under a theory of promissory estoppel because your client relied on the bid. (correct answer)
The subcontractor cannot revoke due to a unilateral mistake unless the contractor knew of the mistake.

Question 20

Was a contract for the sale of the painting formed? Select one.

Yes, because the collector's acceptance was effective when dispatched on Tuesday. (correct answer)
No, because acceptance by mail was not a reasonable means of acceptance in this situation.
No, because the gallery revoked its offer before receiving the collector's acceptance.
Yes, because the gallery's offer became irrevocable once the collector dispatched the acceptance.