Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Consideration
20 questions · exam conditions
0:00
ConsiderationQuestion 1 of 20

A chef agreed to cater a wedding for 100 guests for $10,000. Two weeks before the wedding, the couple asked the chef to add a complex dessert course that was not in the original plan. The chef agreed to add the dessert course, and the couple agreed to pay an additional $1,500. The agreement to add the dessert course and the additional payment was not put in writing. The chef provided the full meal, including the dessert course, but the couple has refused to pay the additional $1,500.

Is the couple's promise to pay the additional $1,500 enforceable? Select one.

No, because the modification was not in writing and the total contract price now exceeds the threshold for oral agreements.
Yes, because the chef's promise to provide the additional dessert course was new consideration for the couple's promise to pay more.
No, because the chef had a preexisting duty to cater the wedding, and the dessert course was not adequate new consideration.
Yes, because under the UCC, modifications to contracts do not require new consideration to be binding.
← Back to quizzes

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz

Bar Exam (Uniform) Quiz: Consideration

Practice Consideration 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 Consideration, 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

A chef agreed to cater a wedding for 100 guests for $10,000. Two weeks before the wedding, the couple asked the chef to add a complex dessert course that was not in the original plan. The chef agreed to add the dessert course, and the couple agreed to pay an additional $1,500. The agreement to add the dessert course and the additional payment was not put in writing. The chef provided the full meal, including the dessert course, but the couple has refused to pay the additional $1,500.

Is the couple's promise to pay the additional $1,500 enforceable? Select one.

  1. No, because the modification was not in writing and the total contract price now exceeds the threshold for oral agreements.
  2. Yes, because the chef's promise to provide the additional dessert course was new consideration for the couple's promise to pay more. (correct answer)
  3. No, because the chef had a preexisting duty to cater the wedding, and the dessert course was not adequate new consideration.
  4. Yes, because under the UCC, modifications to contracts do not require new consideration to be binding.
Explanation: This question tests contract modification principles, specifically what constitutes valid consideration for changes to an existing agreement. When parties modify a contract, the modification itself must be supported by consideration to be enforceable. Here, the chef agreed to provide something entirely new—a complex dessert course that wasn't part of the original catering agreement. This additional service constitutes fresh consideration that supports the couple's promise to pay an extra $1,500. The chef gave up something of value (time, ingredients, labor for the dessert) in exchange for the additional payment, creating a valid bilateral modification. Option A is incorrect because while the Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing, contract modifications don't automatically fall under this requirement just because the total exceeds a threshold. The modification here involves services, not goods, so UCC writing requirements don't apply. Option C misapplies the preexisting duty rule. That doctrine prevents enforcement when someone promises to pay extra for work already legally required. But the chef had no preexisting duty to provide the dessert course—it was entirely outside the original agreement's scope. Option D incorrectly applies UCC rules. Even under the UCC (which governs goods, not services), modifications still need consideration or must meet specific good faith requirements. More importantly, this is a service contract governed by common law, not the UCC. Remember: when analyzing contract modifications, distinguish between additional work (new consideration) and work already required under the original contract (preexisting duty). New services create enforceable modification rights.

Question 2

A boutique clothing store ordered 200 custom-designed dresses from a manufacturer for $100 per dress, with delivery scheduled for October 1. In September, the manufacturer called the store owner and explained that its fabric supplier had unexpectedly gone out of business, and the only available alternative fabric was significantly more expensive. The manufacturer stated it would have to cancel the order unless the store agreed to a new price of $115 per dress. The store owner, needing the dresses for the holiday season, agreed to the new price in an email. The manufacturer delivered the dresses.

Is the agreement to pay the higher price of $115 per dress enforceable against the store? Select one.

  1. No, because the manufacturer had a preexisting duty to deliver the dresses for $100 and provided no new consideration for the price increase.
  2. No, because the modification was obtained through economic duress, as the store had no reasonable alternative but to agree.
  3. Yes, because the modification was proposed in good faith due to a legitimate commercial reason and did not require new consideration. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the store's agreement in an email constitutes a signed writing satisfying the Statute of Frauds for the modified contract.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. This contract is for the sale of goods, so it is governed by the UCC. Under UCC § 2-209, an agreement modifying a contract for the sale of goods needs no consideration to be binding. However, the modification must be made in good faith. Here, the manufacturer's reason for the price increase—the failure of its supplier and the need to use a more expensive alternative—is a legitimate commercial reason. Therefore, the modification was proposed in good faith and is enforceable without new consideration.

Question 3

A software company hired a programmer under a two-year employment contract. After one year, the programmer received a much better job offer from a competitor. To induce the programmer to stay, the company's CEO signed a written amendment to the contract promising the programmer a 20% salary increase and a promotion, effective immediately. The programmer's duties and responsibilities did not change. The programmer stayed with the company. Three months later, the company fired the programmer for reasons unrelated to performance.

Can the programmer successfully enforce the amended contract terms regarding the salary increase? Select one.

  1. No, because the promise of a salary increase was not supported by new consideration from the programmer.
  2. No, because employment contracts are generally terminable at will, and the amendment did not change that.
  3. Yes, because the written amendment, signed by the CEO, is a binding modification regardless of consideration.
  4. Yes, because the programmer's forbearance from accepting the competitor's job offer constituted valid consideration. (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. The preexisting duty rule would normally prevent the programmer from enforcing the salary increase, as she was already obligated to work for the company. However, the programmer provided new consideration by giving up her legal right to terminate the relationship (assuming it was at-will, or even if not, by giving up the power to breach and accept a new job) and accept the offer from the competitor. This forbearance is a legal detriment that was bargained for by the company, and it is sufficient consideration to support the company's promise of a higher salary.

Question 4

Your client, a landlord, rented an apartment to a tenant for $1,200 per month. The tenant paid rent for ten months and then, with two months left on the lease, vacated the apartment without notice. The landlord found a new tenant who agreed to rent the apartment starting one month later, but only for $1,100 per month. The original tenant, feeling guilty, later sent the landlord an email stating, "I'm sorry for leaving. I will pay you the full $1,200 for the month the apartment was vacant." The tenant never paid.

Your client wants to sue the original tenant for the $1,200. What is the strongest basis for the enforceability of the tenant's email promise? Select one.

  1. The promise is a binding modification of the original lease agreement.
  2. The promise is enforceable because it acknowledges a preexisting legal duty under the original lease. (correct answer)
  3. The promise requires no new consideration because it is a promise to pay a contractual obligation that is now barred.
  4. The promise is enforceable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Explanation: This question tests your understanding of contract modifications and the enforceability of promises to pay existing debts. When a tenant breaches a lease by abandoning the property, they remain liable for unpaid rent, but the landlord has a duty to mitigate damages by finding a replacement tenant. The tenant's email promise is enforceable because it acknowledges a preexisting legal duty under the original lease (B). When the tenant abandoned the apartment, they breached their contractual obligation to pay rent for the remaining lease term. The landlord mitigated damages by finding a new tenant, but the original tenant remained liable for the difference in rent and the vacancy period. The email simply acknowledges this existing legal obligation - no new consideration is needed when someone promises to pay a debt they already owe. Option A is incorrect because this isn't a modification of the lease agreement - it's an acknowledgment of an existing breach and debt. Option C contains a critical error: it suggests the contractual obligation is "barred," but there's nothing indicating the debt is time-barred or otherwise unenforceable. The original lease obligation remains valid. Option D fails because promissory estoppel requires detrimental reliance by the promisee, and there's no indication the landlord changed position based on the tenant's email promise. Remember this key principle: When someone promises to pay a debt they already legally owe, that promise is enforceable without new consideration. Look for acknowledgment language like "I owe" or "I will pay" in similar scenarios - these often signal preexisting duty rather than new contractual obligations.

Question 5

A driver negligently damaged a landowner's prize-winning rose bushes. The landowner threatened to sue the driver for $15,000, which was the amount the roses had recently won at a competition. The driver, believing that a court would likely only award the replacement cost of the bushes (around $1,000), offered to pay the landowner $3,000 if the landowner would agree not to pursue the lawsuit. The landowner agreed and accepted the $3,000. A week later, the landowner learned from an attorney that the claim for $15,000 was unlikely to have succeeded.

Can the landowner now successfully sue the driver for the remaining damages to the rose bushes? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the landowner's original claim was invalid, so the forbearance to sue on it was not valid consideration for the driver's payment.
  2. Yes, because the $3,000 payment was insufficient consideration for the release of a claim potentially worth much more.
  3. No, because forbearance to sue on a claim constitutes valid consideration as long as the claimant had a good faith belief in its validity. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the landowner's acceptance of the $3,000 constituted a novation, fully discharging the driver's original tort liability.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Forbearance to sue on a claim is valid consideration for a settlement agreement if the party forbearing has a good faith belief in the validity of the claim, or if the claim is objectively reasonable. Here, the landowner had a good faith belief in the claim, even if it was unlikely to succeed for the full amount. This good faith forbearance was a legal detriment and thus valid consideration for the driver's promise to pay $3,000. The resulting settlement agreement is an enforceable contract that bars the landowner from pursuing the original tort claim.

Question 6

A driver negligently damaged a landowner's prize-winning rose bushes. The landowner threatened to sue the driver for $15,000, which was the amount the roses had recently won at a competition. The driver, believing that a court would likely only award the replacement cost of the bushes (around $1,000), offered to pay the landowner $3,000 if the landowner would agree not to pursue the lawsuit. The landowner agreed and accepted the $3,000. A week later, the landowner learned from an attorney that the claim for $15,000 was unlikely to have succeeded.

Can the landowner now successfully sue the driver for the remaining damages to the rose bushes? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the landowner's original claim was invalid, so the forbearance to sue on it was not valid consideration for the driver's payment.
  2. Yes, because the $3,000 payment was insufficient consideration for the release of a claim potentially worth much more.
  3. No, because forbearance to sue on a claim constitutes valid consideration as long as the claimant had a good faith belief in its validity. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the landowner's acceptance of the $3,000 constituted a novation, fully discharging the driver's original tort liability.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. Forbearance to sue on a claim is valid consideration for a settlement agreement if the party forbearing has a good faith belief in the validity of the claim, or if the claim is objectively reasonable. Here, the landowner had a good faith belief in the claim, even if it was unlikely to succeed for the full amount. This good faith forbearance was a legal detriment and thus valid consideration for the driver's promise to pay $3,000. The resulting settlement agreement is an enforceable contract that bars the landowner from pursuing the original tort claim.

Question 7

A homeowner had a valid, undisputed debt of $5,000 to a landscaping company for services rendered. The homeowner sent the company a check for $4,000 with a letter stating, "My business has been slow, and this is all I can afford to pay. Please accept this as payment in full." The landscaping company cashed the check and then sent a bill to the homeowner for the remaining $1,000.

Is the homeowner obligated to pay the remaining $1,000? Select one.

  1. No, because the company's act of cashing the check constituted an accord and satisfaction, discharging the full debt.
  2. No, because the homeowner's financial difficulty constitutes a valid excuse for non-performance of the full amount.
  3. Yes, because payment of a lesser amount cannot serve as consideration to discharge a larger, undisputed debt. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the company did not subjectively intend to waive its right to the full payment when it cashed the check.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. For an accord and satisfaction to discharge a debt, there must be valid consideration. When a debt is liquidated and undisputed, the debtor has a preexisting legal duty to pay the full amount. A payment of a lesser amount is not valid consideration to support a promise to discharge the entire debt. The rule is that payment of a smaller sum cannot discharge a larger, liquidated debt. Therefore, the landscaping company can still sue for the remaining $1,000. This differs from a situation involving a disputed debt, where any payment can be consideration for a settlement.

Question 8

A chef agreed to cater a wedding for 100 guests for $10,000. Two weeks before the wedding, the couple asked the chef to add a complex dessert course that was not in the original plan. The chef agreed to add the dessert course, and the couple agreed to pay an additional $1,500. The agreement to add the dessert course and the additional payment was not put in writing. The chef provided the full meal, including the dessert course, but the couple has refused to pay the additional $1,500.

Is the couple's promise to pay the additional $1,500 enforceable? Select one.

  1. No, because the modification was not in writing and the total contract price now exceeds the threshold for oral agreements.
  2. Yes, because the chef's promise to provide the additional dessert course was new consideration for the couple's promise to pay more. (correct answer)
  3. No, because the chef had a preexisting duty to cater the wedding, and the dessert course was not adequate new consideration.
  4. Yes, because under the UCC, modifications to contracts do not require new consideration to be binding.
Explanation: This question tests contract modification principles, specifically what constitutes valid consideration for changes to an existing agreement. When parties modify a contract, the modification itself must be supported by consideration to be enforceable. Here, the chef agreed to provide something entirely new—a complex dessert course that wasn't part of the original catering agreement. This additional service constitutes fresh consideration that supports the couple's promise to pay an extra $1,500. The chef gave up something of value (time, ingredients, labor for the dessert) in exchange for the additional payment, creating a valid bilateral modification. Option A is incorrect because while the Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing, contract modifications don't automatically fall under this requirement just because the total exceeds a threshold. The modification here involves services, not goods, so UCC writing requirements don't apply. Option C misapplies the preexisting duty rule. That doctrine prevents enforcement when someone promises to pay extra for work already legally required. But the chef had no preexisting duty to provide the dessert course—it was entirely outside the original agreement's scope. Option D incorrectly applies UCC rules. Even under the UCC (which governs goods, not services), modifications still need consideration or must meet specific good faith requirements. More importantly, this is a service contract governed by common law, not the UCC. Remember: when analyzing contract modifications, distinguish between additional work (new consideration) and work already required under the original contract (preexisting duty). New services create enforceable modification rights.

Question 9

A father promised his daughter, an aspiring musician, "I will pay for your rent for one year so you can focus on your music without having to work a day job." Relying on this promise, the daughter quit her part-time job as a waitress, signed a one-year lease on an apartment, and spent her time composing music. After three months, the father and daughter had an argument, and the father refused to make any more rent payments.

If the daughter sues her father to enforce his promise, what is her strongest legal theory for recovery? Select one.

  1. Unilateral contract, because the daughter accepted her father's offer by quitting her job and signing the lease.
  2. Bilateral contract, because there was a bargained-for exchange of the father's promise for the daughter's promise to pursue music.
  3. Promissory estoppel, because the daughter reasonably and detrimentally relied on her father's promise. (correct answer)
  4. Quasi-contract, to prevent the father's unjust enrichment at the daughter's expense.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. This scenario presents a classic case for promissory estoppel. The father's promise, while likely intended as a gift and lacking traditional bargained-for consideration, was clear and definite. It was foreseeable that the daughter would rely on it by quitting her job and signing a lease. She did in fact rely on it to her detriment. In such cases, courts may enforce the promise to the extent necessary to avoid injustice. The other options are weaker: there was no bargained-for exchange for a contract, and the father was not unjustly enriched.

Question 10

A consulting firm completed a project for a client and sent an invoice for $50,000. The client, genuinely believing that the firm's work was subpar and had failed to meet several key objectives, sent a check for $30,000. In the memo line of the check, the client wrote, "Payment in full for all services." The firm's controller deposited the check without noticing the notation. The firm now seeks to sue the client for the remaining $20,000.

What is the client's strongest defense against the firm's lawsuit? Select one.

  1. The firm's claim is barred by the doctrine of accord and satisfaction. (correct answer)
  2. The firm's claim is barred because it failed to mitigate its damages.
  3. The firm's deposit of the check constituted a novation of the original agreement.
  4. The firm's claim is barred by the equitable doctrine of unclean hands.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. An accord and satisfaction occurs when there is a dispute over the amount of a debt, and one party offers a payment on the express condition that its acceptance will be in full satisfaction of the debt. The other party's acceptance of that payment creates an enforceable settlement. Here, there was a bona fide dispute about the quality of the work and the amount owed. The client's check with the "payment in full" notation was an offer of accord. The firm's act of cashing the check constituted acceptance of that offer, creating an accord and satisfaction that discharges the remaining disputed debt.

Question 11

A construction company was under contract with a developer to build an office building. The company hired a subcontractor to install the electrical wiring for a fixed price. The subcontractor threatened to walk off the job unless the developer, who was not a party to the subcontract, promised to guarantee payment. The developer, wanting to avoid delays, orally promised the subcontractor, "If the construction company doesn't pay you, I will." The subcontractor completed the work, but the construction company went bankrupt and failed to pay.

Is the developer's promise to the subcontractor enforceable? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the developer received the direct benefit of the subcontractor's continued performance on the project. (correct answer)
  2. No, because the subcontractor had a preexisting duty to the construction company to install the wiring.
  3. No, because a promise to guarantee the debt of another must be in writing to satisfy the Statute of Frauds.
  4. Yes, because the subcontractor's forbearance from walking off the job was sufficient consideration for the promise.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. This question involves both consideration and the Statute of Frauds. While B is incorrect because a promise to perform a duty owed to a third party is valid consideration for a promise by a new promisor, C states the general rule for suretyship promises. However, the 'main purpose' or 'leading object' rule is an exception to the Statute of Frauds. If the promisor's main purpose in making the guarantee was to secure a direct benefit for themselves, the oral promise is enforceable. Here, the developer's main purpose was not to benefit the construction company, but to ensure the timely completion of its own project. Thus, the promise is enforceable despite being oral.

Question 12

In 2015, a man borrowed $10,000 from his friend, evidenced by a signed promissory note. The man made no payments. The jurisdiction has a six-year statute of limitations on actions to collect a debt. In 2022, the friend contacted the man about the unpaid loan. The man, feeling guilty, sent the friend a text message stating, "I know I still owe you that $10,000. I will pay you back as soon as I can." A few months later, the man still had not paid, and the friend sued.

Will the friend's lawsuit to collect the $10,000 likely be successful? Select one.

  1. No, because the statute of limitations had already expired, barring the friend's claim.
  2. No, because the man's promise to pay was not supported by any new consideration.
  3. Yes, because the man's written acknowledgment of the debt revived his obligation to pay it. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the original promissory note is still enforceable, as the statute of limitations is an affirmative defense that was waived.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. A promise to pay a debt that has become unenforceable due to the statute of limitations is binding without new consideration. The past debt serves as the basis for the new promise. Most jurisdictions require this new promise or acknowledgment to be in writing to be effective. The man's 2022 text message was a clear, written acknowledgment of the existing debt and an implied promise to pay, which is sufficient to revive the debt and reset the statute of limitations, making the subsequent lawsuit timely and successful.

Question 13

A boutique clothing store ordered 200 custom-designed dresses from a manufacturer for $100 per dress, with delivery scheduled for October 1. In September, the manufacturer called the store owner and explained that its fabric supplier had unexpectedly gone out of business, and the only available alternative fabric was significantly more expensive. The manufacturer stated it would have to cancel the order unless the store agreed to a new price of $115 per dress. The store owner, needing the dresses for the holiday season, agreed to the new price in an email. The manufacturer delivered the dresses.

Is the agreement to pay the higher price of $115 per dress enforceable against the store? Select one.

  1. No, because the manufacturer had a preexisting duty to deliver the dresses for $100 and provided no new consideration for the price increase.
  2. No, because the modification was obtained through economic duress, as the store had no reasonable alternative but to agree.
  3. Yes, because the modification was proposed in good faith due to a legitimate commercial reason and did not require new consideration. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the store's agreement in an email constitutes a signed writing satisfying the Statute of Frauds for the modified contract.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. This contract is for the sale of goods, so it is governed by the UCC. Under UCC § 2-209, an agreement modifying a contract for the sale of goods needs no consideration to be binding. However, the modification must be made in good faith. Here, the manufacturer's reason for the price increase—the failure of its supplier and the need to use a more expensive alternative—is a legitimate commercial reason. Therefore, the modification was proposed in good faith and is enforceable without new consideration.

Question 14

An accountant entered into a written agreement to provide tax preparation services for a client for a flat fee of $5,000. While preparing the taxes, the accountant discovered the client had complex, undisclosed foreign investments that would require an additional 40 hours of work. The accountant explained the situation, and the client orally agreed to pay an additional $3,000 for the extra work. After the accountant completed the tax return, the client paid the original $5,000 but refused to pay the additional $3,000.

In a suit to recover the additional $3,000, which of the following provides the accountant's strongest argument for why the client's promise to pay is enforceable? Select one.

  1. The client's promise is enforceable because the modification was fair and equitable in light of circumstances not anticipated by the parties when the contract was made. (correct answer)
  2. The client's promise is enforceable because the accountant's continued work after the promise was made constituted detrimental reliance on that promise.
  3. The client's promise is enforceable because any good-faith modification to a services contract is binding, even without new consideration.
  4. The client's promise is enforceable under the theory of quantum meruit for the reasonable value of the extra services provided.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. While the preexisting duty rule generally bars enforcement of a modification without new consideration, a major exception applies when (1) the modification is made before the contract is fully performed by either side; (2) the underlying circumstances prompting the modification were unanticipated by the parties; and (3) the modification is fair and equitable. Here, the client's complex, undisclosed foreign investments were an unanticipated circumstance, and the request for additional payment for 40 hours of extra work is fair and equitable. This makes the modification enforceable even without separate consideration.

Question 15

An elderly woman became seriously ill. Her neighbor, out of kindness, provided daily care for her for six months, including cooking meals, driving her to appointments, and managing her medications. The neighbor never asked for payment. After the woman recovered, her adult son, who lived in another state, was so grateful that he sent the neighbor a letter stating, "In recognition of your incredible kindness to my mother, I promise to pay you $5,000." The son later changed his mind and refused to pay.

Is the son's promise to pay the neighbor $5,000 legally enforceable? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the son received a material benefit from the neighbor's actions, which created a moral obligation sufficient to support a subsequent promise to pay.
  2. Yes, under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, because the neighbor can be expected to have relied on the written promise from the son.
  3. No, because the neighbor's services were rendered before the son's promise was made, constituting past consideration. (correct answer)
  4. No, because the neighbor provided the services as a gift, and a promise to pay for a gift is not enforceable.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. A promise is not enforceable without consideration, which requires a bargained-for exchange. Here, the neighbor's services were already performed before the son made his promise. Therefore, the services are past consideration and cannot support the son's promise. While a minority of courts recognize an exception for a promise made in recognition of a material benefit previously received (the 'material benefit rule'), that rule typically requires the benefit to have been conferred on the promisor (the son), not a third party (his mother).

Question 16

You are representing a client, a freelance graphic designer. The client signed a one-year contract with a marketing firm. The contract states that the firm "will assign design projects to the client from time to time, as the firm, in its sole discretion, deems appropriate." The contract also states that the client will be paid a fixed fee for each project completed. For the first six months, the firm provided a steady stream of work. However, for the last two months, the firm has not assigned any projects. The client wants to know if the firm has breached the contract.

What is the most significant obstacle to your client's claim that the firm breached the contract? Select one.

  1. The contract lacks consideration because the firm's promise to assign projects is illusory. (correct answer)
  2. The contract is an unenforceable requirements contract because it does not specify a quantity of projects.
  3. The client's claim is barred by the parol evidence rule, which prevents introducing evidence of prior work.
  4. The client has waived the right to sue by continuing to be available for work for two months without protest.
Explanation: The correct answer is A. A promise is illusory if the promisor retains complete and unfettered discretion over whether to perform. In this contract, the firm's promise to assign projects "in its sole discretion" gives it the power to perform or not perform at its whim. This lack of a binding commitment means there is no consideration from the firm to support the client's promise to be available, rendering the entire contract unenforceable for lack of mutuality of obligation.

Question 17

An art collector owned a painting she believed to be by a famous artist. She told her niece, "If you graduate from law school, I will give you this painting as a graduation gift." The niece, who was already in her final year of law school, was motivated by the promise and spent extra time studying to ensure she would graduate. She successfully graduated and requested the painting. The aunt, however, had the painting appraised and discovered it was a forgery of little value. She refused to give it to the niece.

Which of the following statements best describes the niece's legal position? Select one.

  1. The aunt's promise is enforceable as a unilateral contract because the niece accepted the offer by completing the act of graduating.
  2. The aunt's promise is unenforceable because graduating from law school was a condition of a gift, not consideration for a bargain. (correct answer)
  3. The aunt's promise is enforceable under promissory estoppel because the niece was motivated by the promise to study harder.
  4. The aunt's promise is unenforceable due to the doctrine of mutual mistake, as both parties believed the painting was valuable.
Explanation: The correct answer is B. For a promise to be enforceable, there must be a bargained-for exchange. The key is to distinguish between a condition of a gift and consideration. The test is whether the promisor's motive was to induce the detriment (making it consideration) or merely to state a necessary condition for receiving a gift. Here, the aunt's language ("as a graduation gift") and the context indicate her motive was donative. The niece was already enrolled in law school, and graduation was merely the event that would trigger the promised gift, not a bargained-for performance. Therefore, the promise lacks consideration.

Question 18

A winery entered into a written agreement with a grape grower. The agreement stated that for the next five years, the winery "agrees to purchase from the grower all of the grapes that the winery requires to operate its business at its current capacity." The price was set at $2,000 per ton. In the first year, the winery purchased 100 tons. In the second year, due to a downturn in the market, the winery decided to produce less wine and informed the grower that it would not require any grapes.

Has the winery breached its contract with the grower? Select one.

  1. Yes, because the winery was obligated to purchase a quantity similar to what it purchased in the first year.
  2. Yes, because a promise to purchase an amount that is within the buyer's control is an illusory promise.
  3. No, because the contract lacked a specific quantity term and is therefore unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds.
  4. No, because in a requirements contract, a buyer may reduce its requirements to zero if the reduction is made in good faith. (correct answer)
Explanation: The correct answer is D. This is a requirements contract, which is enforceable under the UCC. The quantity is measured by the good faith requirements of the buyer. While a buyer cannot demand a quantity unreasonably disproportionate to any stated estimate or prior output, it can reduce its requirements, even to zero, as long as the reduction is made in good faith and not merely to avoid the contract. Here, the reduction was due to a downturn in the market, which is a legitimate business reason. Therefore, the winery's decision not to require any grapes was likely made in good faith and is not a breach.

Question 19

A father promised his daughter, an aspiring musician, "I will pay for your rent for one year so you can focus on your music without having to work a day job." Relying on this promise, the daughter quit her part-time job as a waitress, signed a one-year lease on an apartment, and spent her time composing music. After three months, the father and daughter had an argument, and the father refused to make any more rent payments.

If the daughter sues her father to enforce his promise, what is her strongest legal theory for recovery? Select one.

  1. Unilateral contract, because the daughter accepted her father's offer by quitting her job and signing the lease.
  2. Bilateral contract, because there was a bargained-for exchange of the father's promise for the daughter's promise to pursue music.
  3. Promissory estoppel, because the daughter reasonably and detrimentally relied on her father's promise. (correct answer)
  4. Quasi-contract, to prevent the father's unjust enrichment at the daughter's expense.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. This scenario presents a classic case for promissory estoppel. The father's promise, while likely intended as a gift and lacking traditional bargained-for consideration, was clear and definite. It was foreseeable that the daughter would rely on it by quitting her job and signing a lease. She did in fact rely on it to her detriment. In such cases, courts may enforce the promise to the extent necessary to avoid injustice. The other options are weaker: there was no bargained-for exchange for a contract, and the father was not unjustly enriched.

Question 20

A homeowner had a valid, undisputed debt of $5,000 to a landscaping company for services rendered. The homeowner sent the company a check for $4,000 with a letter stating, "My business has been slow, and this is all I can afford to pay. Please accept this as payment in full." The landscaping company cashed the check and then sent a bill to the homeowner for the remaining $1,000.

Is the homeowner obligated to pay the remaining $1,000? Select one.

  1. No, because the company's act of cashing the check constituted an accord and satisfaction, discharging the full debt.
  2. No, because the homeowner's financial difficulty constitutes a valid excuse for non-performance of the full amount.
  3. Yes, because payment of a lesser amount cannot serve as consideration to discharge a larger, undisputed debt. (correct answer)
  4. Yes, because the company did not subjectively intend to waive its right to the full payment when it cashed the check.
Explanation: The correct answer is C. For an accord and satisfaction to discharge a debt, there must be valid consideration. When a debt is liquidated and undisputed, the debtor has a preexisting legal duty to pay the full amount. A payment of a lesser amount is not valid consideration to support a promise to discharge the entire debt. The rule is that payment of a smaller sum cannot discharge a larger, liquidated debt. Therefore, the landscaping company can still sue for the remaining $1,000. This differs from a situation involving a disputed debt, where any payment can be consideration for a settlement.