CPA Regulation Reg Quiz: Identify Defenses To Contract Enforcement

What this quiz covers

This quiz focuses on Identify Defenses To Contract Enforcement, giving you a quick way to practice the rules, question types, and explanations that matter most for CPA Regulation Reg.

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.

Question 1

1. A contract may be voided for unilateral mistake only when: the non-mistaken party knew or should have known of the mistake, or when enforcement would be unconscionable, and the mistake concerns a material fact (not merely a judgment or prediction). (correct answer)
2. A contract may always be voided if one party made any mistake in entering the contract.
3. Unilateral mistake is never a defense to contract enforcement under common law.
4. Unilateral mistake is a defense only when the mistake involved more than $10,000.

Explanation: Unilateral mistake (where only one party is mistaken) is generally not a basis to void a contract because it would undermine certainty in commercial transactions. However, courts may allow rescission for unilateral mistake when: (1) the other party knew or should have known of the mistake (making enforcement inequitable), or (2) enforcement would be unconscionable. The mistake must be about a material fact. Answer B is incorrect because not all unilateral mistakes allow voiding. Answer C is too absolute; courts do recognize certain unilateral mistake defenses. Answer D imposes a dollar threshold not found in contract law.

Question 2

1. Mutual mistake
2. Impossibility (or impracticability) of performance, because a supervening event beyond both parties' control destroyed the subject matter of the contract. (correct answer)
3. Fraud in the inducement
4. Failure of consideration

Explanation: The defense of impossibility (or commercial impracticability) excuses a party's performance when an unforeseen event after contract formation makes performance objectively impossible. Destruction of the specific subject matter of the contract (such as the goods to be sold) through no fault of either party is a classic case of impossibility that excuses the seller's obligation to deliver and the buyer's obligation to pay. Answer A (mutual mistake) addresses errors about existing facts at the time of contract formation, not supervening events. Answer C (fraud) is inapplicable. Answer D (failure of consideration) relates to the other party's non-performance, not destruction of the subject matter.

Question 3

1. A party refuses to pay for services already rendered.
2. A contract where both parties received equivalent value in exchange.
3. A contract that includes a reasonable limitation of liability clause.
4. A consumer loan agreement with a 250% annual interest rate, signed by an unsophisticated borrower under economic pressure, containing hidden terms that the borrower could not meaningfully negotiate. (correct answer)

Explanation: Unconscionability arises when a contract is so one-sided and oppressive that it shocks the conscience of the court. Courts look for both procedural unconscionability (unfairness in the bargaining process - lack of meaningful choice, oppressive terms, fine print) and substantive unconscionability (unreasonably harsh or one-sided terms). A 250% interest rate consumer loan with hidden terms forced on an unsophisticated borrower illustrates both types. Answer A describes breach. Answer B describes a fair exchange (no unconscionability). Answer C describes a reasonable, enforceable limitation clause.

Question 4

1. A contract for the sale of real property. (correct answer)
2. A contract for the delivery of groceries worth $200.
3. An oral employment agreement for one year beginning immediately.
4. A contract for the sale of goods worth $400.

Explanation: The Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing, including: contracts for the sale of interests in real property, contracts that cannot be performed within one year from the date of formation, contracts for the sale of goods for $500 or more (UCC), promises to answer for the debts of another (suretyship), and promises made in consideration of marriage. A contract for the sale of real property falls squarely within the Statute of Frauds and must be evidenced by a writing. Answer B (groceries for$200) is below the UCC $500 threshold. Answer C (one-year employment beginning immediately) can be completed within one year of formation. Answer D (goods for$400) is below the UCC $500 threshold.

Question 5

1. Any contract involving a business subject to government regulation is illegal.
2. A contract that requires the performance of an illegal act or that violates public policy is unenforceable; the law will not help either party enforce such a contract. (correct answer)
3. A contract is illegal only if a party is arrested for the underlying conduct.
4. Illegality is a defense only if the illegality was known to both parties at the time of contracting.

Explanation: When a contract requires the performance of an act that is illegal under applicable law or violates public policy (such as a contract to commit a crime, defraud others, or restrain trade unreasonably), the contract is generally unenforceable as illegal. Courts will typically leave both parties in the position they are in and provide no remedy to either party. Answer A is too broad; regulated businesses may enter many legitimate contracts. Answer C is incorrect because criminal arrest is not required for a contract to be illegal. Answer D is incorrect because illegality may render a contract void regardless of whether both parties knew of it.

Question 6

1. A contract entered into by a minor (person under 18) is voidable at the minor's option; the minor may disaffirm the contract either during minority or within a reasonable time after reaching majority. (correct answer)
2. Contracts with minors are void and have no legal effect whatsoever.
3. A minor may not disaffirm a contract once they have received any benefit from it.
4. Contracts with minors are fully enforceable against the minor if the contract is in writing.

Explanation: Contracts entered into by minors are generally voidable at the minor's option. The minor may disaffirm (void) the contract during minority or within a reasonable time after reaching the age of majority (18). Upon disaffirmance, the minor must return any goods still in their possession. Exceptions exist for necessities (minors are liable for the reasonable value of necessities). Answer B is incorrect because minor's contracts are voidable (the minor can enforce or disaffirm), not void (with no legal effect). Answer C is incorrect because receiving a benefit does not prevent disaffirmance (though the minor must return what they still have). Answer D is incorrect because a writing does not make minors' contracts fully enforceable.

Question 7

1. Performance is excused whenever a contract becomes more expensive than the party anticipated.
2. Performance is excused only when the subject matter of the contract is destroyed.
3. Performance may be excused when an unforeseen supervening event substantially frustrates the principal purpose of the contract, making the value of the other party's performance virtually worthless, even if performance is technically still possible. (correct answer)
4. Performance is excused whenever either party experiences financial hardship after contracting.

Explanation: The frustration of purpose doctrine excuses performance when: (1) the principal purpose of the contract is substantially frustrated; (2) the frustrating event was not foreseeable at the time of contracting; and (3) the non-occurrence of the frustrating event was a basic assumption of the contract. Unlike impossibility, performance may still be technically possible, but the purpose for which the contract was made has been destroyed. The classic example is Krell v. Henry, where a hotel room was rented to view a coronation procession that was subsequently cancelled. Answer A is incorrect because increased cost is generally not frustration. Answer B describes impossibility, not frustration. Answer D is incorrect because financial hardship alone is not frustration.

Question 8

1. A promise to be responsible for the debt of another person (suretyship).
2. A contract for the sale of goods for $600.
3. A contract for the performance of services that is fully capable of being completed within one year. (correct answer)
4. A contract for the lease of real property for more than one year.

Explanation: The Statute of Frauds applies to contracts that cannot by their terms be performed within one year of formation. A service contract that is fully capable of being completed within one year does not need to be in writing, even if it is not yet completed. The test is whether performance within one year is possible, not whether it is likely. Answer A (suretyship) must be in writing. Answer B (sale of goods $600) must be in writing under UCC ($500 threshold). Answer D (real property lease over one year) must be in writing.

Question 9

1. A person lacks mental capacity if, at the time of contracting, they could not understand the nature and consequences of the transaction, or could not act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction due to a mental illness or defect. (correct answer)
2. Mental incapacity is established only if the person has been adjudicated incompetent by a court before contracting.
3. A person lacks mental capacity if they were intoxicated at any point before signing the contract.
4. Mental incapacity is always a void (rather than voidable) condition, making all contracts of a person with any mental illness void.

Explanation: Mental incapacity in contract law is determined by a cognitive test: at the time of contracting, the party must have been unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction, or (under the modern test) unable to act in a reasonable manner due to a mental illness or defect, and the other party had reason to know of the condition. The contract is voidable (not void) by the incapacitated party. Answer B is incorrect because formal adjudication is not required; capacity is evaluated at the moment of contracting. Answer C is incorrect because temporary intoxication must be severe enough to prevent understanding and the other party must know of it. Answer D is incorrect because contracts with mentally incapacitated persons are generally voidable, not void.

Question 10

1. The writing must contain all essential terms of the contract including price, delivery terms, and payment terms.
2. The writing must be a formal purchase order on company letterhead.
3. The writing must indicate that a contract has been made, state the quantity of goods, and be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought; other terms may be supplied by course of dealing or the UCC gap-filler rules. (correct answer)
4. The writing must include the signatures of both parties.

Explanation: Under UCC Section 2-201, a writing sufficient to satisfy the Statute of Frauds for a sale of goods must: (1) indicate that a contract has been made; (2) state the quantity of goods; and (3) be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought. Missing terms other than quantity may be supplied by the UCC's gap-filler provisions. The writing is only enforceable up to the quantity stated. Answer A is incorrect because the UCC does not require all essential terms in the writing. Answer B is incorrect because formal company letterhead is not required. Answer D is incorrect because only the signature of the party to be charged is required (not both parties).

Question 11

1. Under the main purpose doctrine, a promise to pay another's debt need not be in writing if the main purpose of the promisor's promise is to benefit themselves rather than the original debtor, such as when a stockholder promises to pay a corporate debt to prevent the corporation from closing and protecting their investment. (correct answer)
2. Under the main purpose doctrine, any oral promise to guarantee another's debt is enforceable if both parties intended the promise to be binding.
3. The main purpose doctrine eliminates all writing requirements for suretyship agreements.
4. The main purpose doctrine applies only to contracts made between merchants.

Explanation: The main purpose (or leading object) rule provides an exception to the Statute of Frauds for suretyship promises. If the primary purpose of a promise to pay another's debt is to benefit the promisor (rather than the principal debtor), the promise need not be in writing. For example, a shareholder who orally promises to pay their corporation's debt to prevent the corporation from being shut down is primarily acting to protect their own investment - the main purpose is personal benefit. Answer B is incorrect because the main purpose doctrine requires a finding of personal benefit, not mere intent. Answer C is too broad. Answer D incorrectly limits the rule to merchants.

Question 12

1. A contract between two parties who had previously been in a dispute.
2. A contract that favors one party more than the other in terms of price.
3. A contract where an employer requires employees to sign an agreement releasing the employer from all liability for the employer's own future intentional torts against employees. (correct answer)
4. A contract where a business charges higher prices than competitors.

Explanation: Contracts that attempt to release a party from liability for their own future intentional torts (or gross negligence in some jurisdictions) are against public policy and are unenforceable. Allowing parties to contract away liability for future intentional misconduct would undermine the deterrent effect of tort law and encourage harmful conduct. Answer A is not against public policy; prior disputes are common. Answer B is not against public policy because courts do not inquire into adequacy of consideration. Answer D is normal commercial conduct and not against public policy.

Question 13

1. Oral promises made during negotiations that contradict the final written agreement.
2. Prior written agreements that were superseded by the final written contract.
3. Contemporaneous oral side agreements that modify the written contract's payment terms.
4. Evidence of fraud, duress, or mistake that would show the written contract is not a valid agreement, or evidence of subsequent oral modifications, or evidence explaining ambiguous terms. (correct answer)

Explanation: The parol evidence rule excludes extrinsic evidence of prior or contemporaneous agreements that contradict or vary the terms of a fully integrated written contract. However, the rule has important exceptions: (1) evidence of fraud, duress, mistake, or lack of consideration is admissible to challenge the validity of the contract; (2) evidence of subsequent oral modifications (made after the contract was signed) is admissible; (3) evidence to explain ambiguous terms is admissible; and (4) evidence of conditions precedent. Answer A is excluded by the rule. Answer B is excluded because it was superseded. Answer C is excluded because it modifies the terms contemporaneously.

Question 14

1. Promissory estoppel
2. Part performance (equitable estoppel), which prevents a party from asserting the Statute of Frauds when the other party has partially or fully performed in reliance on the oral agreement. (correct answer)
3. Ratification
4. The doctrine of substantial performance

Explanation: The doctrine of part performance (also called equitable estoppel in this context) prevents a party from using the Statute of Frauds to void a contract for the sale of land when the other party has performed acts that are clearly referable to the oral contract - particularly when the buyer has paid the price, taken possession, and made substantial improvements. Allowing the seller to use the Statute of Frauds in this situation would be inequitable. Answer A (promissory estoppel) applies to gratuitous promises and detrimental reliance, a related but somewhat different concept. Answer C (ratification) applies to agency law. Answer D (substantial performance) applies to excuse minor defects in contract performance.

Question 15

1. Innocent misrepresentation is a false statement made without knowledge of its falsity or intent to deceive; the remedy is rescission of the contract, not damages. (correct answer)
2. Innocent misrepresentation carries the same legal consequences as fraudulent misrepresentation.
3. Innocent misrepresentation is never a defense to contract enforcement because no intent existed.
4. Innocent misrepresentation must involve a statement of opinion, not fact.

Explanation: Innocent misrepresentation is a false statement made without knowledge of its falsity and without intent to deceive. Because the speaker was not at fault, the remedy is typically only rescission (cancellation of the contract) rather than damages for fraud. In contrast, fraudulent misrepresentation (made with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) allows the defrauded party to choose between rescission and damages for the fraud. Answer B is incorrect because innocent misrepresentation generally does not support a fraud damages claim. Answer C is incorrect because innocent misrepresentation does allow rescission. Answer D is incorrect because misrepresentation requires a false statement of fact, not opinion.

Question 16

1. A party enters a contract after receiving an unfavorable financial forecast.
2. A party signs a contract under time pressure to complete a business transaction.
3. A party signs a contract after being threatened by the other party that unless they sign, their family will be harmed. (correct answer)
4. A party signs a contract that turns out to be less profitable than expected.

Explanation: Duress involves a wrongful act or threat by one party that overcomes the free will of the other party, inducing them to enter the contract. A threat of physical harm to the party or their family is a classic example of duress sufficient to void the contract. The threat must be improper and must leave the victim with no reasonable alternative. Answer A (financial forecast) represents economic pressure from external circumstances, not duress by the other party. Answer B (time pressure) is a commercial reality, not duress. Answer D (less profitable outcome) describes a bad bargain, not duress.

Question 17

1. A party making an offer that is financially very attractive to the other party.
2. A party in a position of trust or confidence uses that relationship to overcome the other party's free will, substituting their own will for the other party's, inducing them to enter a contract they would not otherwise have agreed to. (correct answer)
3. A party making a fair offer to someone who is in a desperate financial situation.
4. A party using normal sales persuasion techniques to encourage the other party to buy.

Explanation: Undue influence requires: (1) a special relationship of trust, confidence, or authority (such as attorney-client, doctor-patient, parent-child, or fiduciary relationships); and (2) the dominant party uses that relationship to overcome the weaker party's free will, substituting the dominant party's will for the other's. It is more subtle than duress but similarly overcomes genuine consent. Answer A describes an attractive offer (not undue influence). Answer C describes taking advantage of economic circumstances without the relationship element. Answer D describes permissible persuasion.

Question 18

1. Both parties clearly understood and agreed to the same contract terms.
2. The parties used the same term but each meant something materially different, and neither party knew or should have known of the other's different meaning. (correct answer)
3. One party accepted the offer with slight modifications.
4. An offer was communicated by email and accepted by fax.

Explanation: Mutual assent requires a meeting of the minds - the parties must intend to contract on the same terms. When the parties use the same language but each means something materially different, and neither party should have known of the other's meaning (the Raffles v. Wichelhaus 'Peerless' ship problem), no contract is formed because there is no meeting of the minds. This is a fundamental failure of assent. Answer A describes a valid contract with mutual assent. Answer C describes a counteroffer under common law's mirror-image rule, which may create a different contract. Answer D is a valid acceptance via a reasonable medium.

Question 19

1. The defendant merely offered a bad deal that the plaintiff reluctantly accepted.
2. The plaintiff suffered a financial loss after entering the contract.
3. The defendant simply charged higher prices than competitors.
4. The defendant made an improper threat that left the plaintiff with no reasonable alternative but to agree to the contract; the threat must be wrongful and the plaintiff's distress must be economic. (correct answer)

Explanation: Economic duress (business compulsion) requires: (1) an improper threat by the defendant (such as breach of an existing contract, or an unlawful act); (2) the threat caused the plaintiff to have no reasonable alternative but to comply; and (3) the plaintiff's free will was overcome. Simply offering unattractive terms is not duress. Answer A describes a bad bargain (not duress). Answer B describes a poor outcome (not duress). Answer C describes competitive pricing (not a wrongful threat). Only Answer D incorporates the wrongful threat and no-reasonable-alternative elements required for economic duress.

Question 20

1. A moral obligation to perform a past act.
2. A promise to do something already legally required.
3. A gift promised by one party without any request for something in exchange.
4. A bargained-for exchange where each party gives or promises something of legal value that induces the other's promise. (correct answer)

Explanation: Valid consideration requires: (1) a bargained-for exchange between the parties; (2) something of legal value given by each party (including a promise, an act, forbearance, or creation of a legal relationship); and (3) the exchange must be mutually inducing. Answer A (moral obligation) is generally insufficient as consideration under the pre-existing legal duty rule variations. Answer B (doing something already legally required - pre-existing duty rule) is generally not new consideration. Answer C (a promise to make a gift without requesting anything in return) is a gratuitous promise lacking consideration.