Blog

Which of the following is not a way to discharge by mutual agreement?

Which of the following is false in regards to the concept of title? 

Regional metamorphism occurs at ________ plate boundaries.

What is the best definition of legal assent? 

The book refers to three types of incapacity which it refers to as the “three I’s.” Which of the following is one of the “three I’s”?

Which of the following is a false statement regarding acceptance under the UCC?

Which of the following is an equitable remedy?

Which is not an exception carved out by the UCC to the statute of fraud’s writing requirement? 

Rachel is an antiquities dealer and self-proclaimed expert in classical antiquities with a doctorate in Roman, Egyptian, and Near Eastern art. Olivia is an art dealer who mainly deals in 16th to 19th century art (which is not the same as the ancient art that Rachel specializes in). Olivia asserts that her expertise is in Renaissance art and that she is merely an “amateur collector” of classical antiquities. Last year, Rachel visited Olivia’s home out of which she operated her business, and Rachel purchased one item: a marble bust of Truman the Tiger, that both Olivia and Rachel believed was an ancient Roman artifact. Rachel had previously purchased items from Olivia that they both believed were ancient art but they later found out the art was actually from a different time period, but the bust of Truman the Tiger truly looked to be a piece of fine ancient art. A few months later, Rachel submitted the Truman statue to a lab for metallographic analysis. The lab determined that the bust was actually from the 19th or 20th century, and therefore not ancient. Rachel filed a suit against Olivia, claiming the contract should be voided due to mutual mistake and that Olivia should refund the money spent to purchase the Tiger statue given that it was not actually a piece of ancient art. How will the court likely rule?

After a wild first year in college with less than stellar academic results, Sidney made a deal with her grandmother to keep an 11pm curfew and refrain from consuming alcohol and other intoxicating substances for the next academic year. In exchange, Sidney would receive a new car, worth $35,000. Sidney was 21 for the entire academic year covered by the agreement. Unfortunately, Sidney’s grandmother passed away after Sidney successfully completed the agreement (finishing the year with notably better grades), but before the car could be purchased. The grandmother’s estate does not want to make good on the agreement, and to get Sidney to go away tells Sidney that she would not be successful in a lawsuit to enforce this agreement arguing that because what she agreed to do was good for her, the agreement lacked consideration. Is the estate correct?