Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) No,all states have Sabbath laws that make it illegal to enter into a contract on a Sabbath day,however,fully performed contracts created on a Sabbath day cannot be rescinded.
B) Yes,though not all states have Sabbath laws that make it illegal to enter into a contract on a Sabbath day,any contract created on a Sabbath day can be rescinded.
C) No,some Sabbath laws make it illegal to enter into a contract on a Sabbath day,however,fully performed contracts created on a Sabbath day cannot be rescinded.
D) Yes,all states have Sabbath laws that make it illegal to enter into a contract on a Sabbath day.
E) No,but only because the contract was not fully executed.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Yes,because Calvin is working for a competitor,his employment contract specifically states that it remains in effect if the business is sold to a new owner,and the covenant not to compete is reasonable.
B) Yes,because the covenant not to compete protects a legitimate business interest.
C) Yes,because Calvin is working for a competitor.
D) No,because the covenant not to compete does not contain a period of time and geographic area that are reasonable.
E) Yes,because Calvin is working for a competitor and his employment contract specifically states that it remains in effect if the business is sold to a new owner.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Public policy
B) Medical literature
C) Popular opinion
D) Morality
E) Religion
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Capacity
B) Understanding
C) Consideration
D) History
E) Ratification
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) In all states Rose must return the dress;but she has a right to a full refund.
B) In all states Rose has the right to keep the dress and get a refund.
C) Regardless of what she does with the dress,Rose has no right to a refund in any state.
D) In some states Rose would have an obligation of restitution to the store.
E) In all states Rose would have an obligation of restitution to the store.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Unclear drafting
B) Procedural unconscionability
C) Adhesion conscionability
D) Outrageous wording
E) Substantive unconscionability
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Independent contracts
B) Adhesion contracts
C) Justifiable contracts
D) Substantive contracts
E) Severable contracts
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Outrageous
B) Adhesion
C) Unreasonable
D) Substantively unconscionable
E) Procedurally unreasonable
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) No,because the purpose of the statute was to control the number of pedicurists in the state.
B) Yes,because it was ratified by two months of performance.
C) No,because the licensing statute in that state is intended to protect public health,and the agreement would most likely be deemed illegal and unenforceable.
D) Yes,because licensing statutes are meant to provide revenue to the state and the proper remedy for an unlicensed professional is a fine.
E) Yes,because the contract can be severed and it is not relevant that the law requires a license to protect the public.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Persons suffering from a mental illness have full capacity to enter into a binding contract so long as they inform the other party that they are in treatment.
B) Persons suffering from a mental illness may have full,limited,or no legal capacity to enter into a binding contract depending on the nature and extent of their mental deficiency.
C) Persons who suffer from a mental illness always have full capacity to enter into a binding contract.
D) Persons suffering from a mental illness have full capacity to enter into a binding contract so long as they do not present a danger to themselves or others.
E) Persons suffering from a mental illness have no capacity to enter into a binding contract.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Any party other than the intoxicated person must be returned to the condition he or she was in at the time the contract was entered into.
B) So long as the contract was objectively fair,neither party must be returned to the condition he or she was in prior to the time the contract was entered into.
C) Each party to the contract must return the other to the condition he or she was in at the time the contract was entered into.
D) The intoxicated person must be returned to the condition he or she was in at the time the contract was entered into,but that is not true for any other party.
E) So long as the contract was subjectively fair in the opinion of the intoxicated party,neither party must be returned to the condition he or she was in prior to the time the contract was entered into.
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Multiple Choice
A) Executory
B) Executed
C) Disregarded
D) Discharged
E) Enforced
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Yes,if Roland could show that the main purpose of the contract was for Parna to work as a poker dealer,then declaring parts of the contract as void would substantially alter the contract.
B) No,because courts are likely to enforce a contract regardless of whether severing the contract would substantially alter it.
C) No,because almost every contract is divisible.
D) No,because even if the legal parts were separated from the contract,the main purpose of the contract employing Parna as a poker dealer) can be met after she turns 21.
E) Yes,because Parna would be unjustifiably enriched if Roland paid for the program.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) malfeasance
B) procedural
C) substantive
D) adhesion
E) exculpatory
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Ratification
B) Reaffirmance
C) Legal release
D) Disaffirmance
E) Emancipation
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 21 - 40 of 90
Related Exams