IN-CLASS EXAMINATION
CONTRACTS
FALL, 1997
PROFESSOR KLEINBERGER
General Instructions
This is an open book examination. You may use the casebook, the assigned supplement, any additional materials distributed by the professor during the semester and any notes you have made or developed in studying for the course or the exam. You may use outlines or other notes developed by a group of students enrolled in this course this semester if you played a substantial role in the development of the group outline or notes. Except as stated in the second and third sentences of this paragraph, you may not use treatises, hornbooks, commercial outlines, other commercial works or any other materials prepared by others.
This in-class examination lasts three hours and has five questions. The entire examination, including the take-in question, therefore consists of six questions. Each of the six questions has the same value as each other.
Please keep in mind that "spotting issues" is only the first step in doing a legal analysis. You must also take the issues you identify and organize them into a coherent structure. Then, within that structure, you must examine those issues (by applying the law you see as relevant to the facts you see as relevant) and argue for some conclusion.
Please do not write about subjects that are not germane to your analysis. Writing a "treatise" on some area of law that the question does not put in issue wastes your time and conveys the unfortunate impression that you do not understand which issues are relevant.
To the extent that your analysis involves a particular statutory or Restatement provision, you MUST cite that provision. If your analysis involves the construction (as distinguished from mere application) of a particular word, phrase or provision, it may make sense to quote that word, phrase or provision. Otherwise, do not waste your time quoting the statute or Restatement at length. (On the other hand, if you can quote a piece of a statute or Restatement faster than you can paraphrase it, feel free to do so.)
There is no need to cite case names. If citing case names helps you, feel free to do so. Do not, however, use case names as a substitute for stating the law.
The grading rewards coherence. It will probably be worth your while to take some time to think about the organization of your answer before you begin writing. Ask yourself:
whether you have identified all the necessary parts to your analysis;
whether all the issues you have identified are actually necessary; and
whether you have organized your issues in a way that is likely to make sense to your reader.
Please write legibly. Please write on only one side of each page. If legibility is not your strong point, please skip every other line as you write.
Budget your time.
BUDGET YOUR TIME.
BUDGET YOUR TIME.
BUDGET YOUR TIME.
A. Student wants to go on vacation out of state during the holiday break and needs to ensure that her cat is adequately and consistently taken care of during that time. She asks her neighbor to take care of her cat, specifying in sufficient detail the tasks involved. The neighbor agrees to take care of Student's cat, as Student as requested. As to each of the following scenarios, state whether the neighbor has entered into an enforceable contract to take care of the cat and explain why your statement is correct.
1. In response to Student's request, the neighbor says, "I'll be happy to do that for you."
2. In response to Student's request, the neighbor says, "I'll be happy to do that for you. You can rely on me."
3. In response to Student's request, the neighbor says, "I'll be happy to do that for you. It's the least I can do. After all, I owe you one. Last month you took care of my dog when I went away." [Assume that the neighbor's statement about the dog is accurate.]
4. In response to Student's request, the neighbor says, "I'll be happy to do that for you. It's the least I can do. After all, I owe you one. Last month you took care of my dog when I went away, and, you know, I love my dog as if he were my child." [Assume that the neighbor's statements about the dog are accurate.]
B. Rogers is a morning DJ for a local radio station. Each Friday during college football season, Rogers holds a contest in which he offers a $200 prize to the first caller who accurately predicts the final score of the University of Minnesota's upcoming, Saturday football game. (The radio station takes 50 calls during each contest. Once one caller has predicted a particular score, no other caller is allowed to pick that score.)
Two weeks ago, on Friday morning, Rogers again held the same contest. He stated, "The first caller to call up and give us the final score of the Minnesota--Wisconsin game will win $200." Although the station accepted 50 different predictions, none were correct.
Early the following Sunday morning, a satellite feed failed and the station found itself facing the prospect of "dead air." The station decided to rebroadcast Rogers' Friday morning show. At approximately 3:10 AM Sunday morning the station rebroadcast Rogers' statement as quoted in the previous paragraph. Two minutes later, a slightly inebriated listener telephoned the station and correctly stated the final score of the previous day's Minnesota--Wisconsin game. The listener had never before listened to Rogers' show. Does the radio station owe the listener $200? Explain.
C. Oscar and Felix live approximately 200 miles from each other. Oscar writes a letter to Felix, offering to sell Felix a snowmobile for $450. The letter states, "I'll keep this offer open for you for 7 days from the date of this letter." The letter is dated November 3, and Felix receives the letter two days later. Felix immediately decides to accept the offer. He writes a letter to Oscar, dated November 5, stating (in its entirety), "Dear Oscar: Thanks for the offer. I accept!"
Just as Felix seals up the letter in an envelope, Felix has a visit from Bernie, a friend of both Felix and Oscar. Learning that Bernie is planning to visit Oscar the next day, Felix gives Bernie the letter to deliver to Oscar. Bernie promises to do so.
Unfortunately, Bernie -- ordinarily an extremely reliable fellow -- completely forgets the letter. On November 12, having heard nothing from Felix, Oscar sells the snowmobile to Cynthia. Cynthia pays for the snowmobile that day and drives the snowmobile away.
On November 13, Felix telephones Oscar to see about paying for and taking delivery of the snowmobile. Oscar explains that he has sold the snowmobile to someone else. Does Felix have a valid claim against Oscar? Explain. [Do not concern yourself with remedies.]
D. In August of 1997, Hanna and her longtime boyfriend reached an understanding with the following elements:
1. For the upcoming professional football season:
a. Hanna would stop objecting to the boyfriend participating in a fantasy football league that charged each participant an entrance fee and used the entrance fees to pay prizes to the participants whose fantasy teams performed the best.
b. Hanna would acquiesce in the boyfriend spending his Saturday evenings at "league meetings" (which happened to be convened at a local bar).
c. Hanna would acquiesce in the boyfriend missing church each Sunday so that the boyfriend could be free to watch as many Sunday football games as possible. (Up to this point, Hanna and the boyfriend had regularly attended church together on Sunday, and Hanna had derived considerable pleasure from that shared experience.)
2. The boyfriend would use any winnings to purchase a diamond ring to give to Hanna.
Until the last three weeks of the season, the boyfriend's team was doing superbly. The team was in first place, and it seemed likely that the boyfriend would win at least $1500 and perhaps as much as $3000. Then the boyfriend made a series of very questionable trades, his team lost all three remaining games by lopsided scores and the boyfriend won no prize money.
The boyfriend explained the sudden demise by saying, "It's a slump. Everybody slumps once in a while. Look at the Vikings, for goodness sakes." Hanna was initially inclined to credit her boyfriend's explanation, but then she overheard one of the other league participants saying that "[Hanna's boyfriend] was so afraid that a big, fancy ring would be seen as some kind of commitment that he traded away all his best players and went into the tank."(1)
According to the principles studied so far in this course, does Hanna have any valid claim against the boyfriend? Explain. [Do not concern yourself with remedies.]
E. Belle is strolling down the street, singing, "I need six eggs." A local merchant responds by quoting Belle a price. She rejoins, "That's too expensive." The merchant states a slightly lower price, and Belle agrees.
"Take them now?" the merchant asks.
"No," says Belle. "I'll pick them up tomorrow. But I'll pay for them now." She does so, and the merchant gives her a receipt. The receipt is a on a pre-printed form with the merchant's name on the top. Underneath the merchant's name appears the following:
ALL SALES FINAL. NO TERMS EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY STATED HERE.
The merchant writes on the receipt. "Sold to Belle for pick-up tomorrow during regular business hours, six farm-fresh eggs. Price already paid."
The next day Belle shows up at 7 AM (well before regular business hours). The merchant's shop is closed. Irate, Bell returns at 9 AM, only to discover that the merchant is planning to provide her with six brown eggs. Belle insists on white eggs.
In the subsequent litigation:
1. Will Belle be allowed to testify to the effect that, as the merchant was making out the receipt, the merchant promised Belle that the eggs would be available beginning at 6 AM the next morning?
2. Will the merchant be allowed to provide evidence to the effect that "in this town shops normally open at 9 or 9:30 AM every weekday"?
3. Will Belle be allowed to testify that "I always buy my eggs from the vendor across town and their eggs are always white."?
4. Will the merchant be allowed to provide evidence that in that region of the country customers are generally indifferent as between white and brown eggs?
Explain.
1. The phrase "went into the tank" suggests purposefully losing.
Back to Professor Kleinberger's page
Back to the exam file