Blog

Thomas is looking to enter a contract with Susan to purchase high quality shelving specific to the needs of his manufacturing plant. Susan is happy to sell Thomas what he needs, but she knows it will cost her a lot of money to make the specific types of shelves that Thomas wants to buy, and she is afraid of spending a lot of money to make the shelves and then having Thomas decide not to buy them. The final contract that Thomas and Susan agree to says that Thomas will have the ability to determine whether he wants to purchase between $1,000 and $1.5 million worth of shelves, but that if Thomas buys less than $20,000 worth of shelves then he has to pay for the amount of shelves he orders and also pay an additional $30,000 fee to Susan. Will this contract be governed by Article 2 of the UCC or by common law?

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?