Docsity
Docsity

Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity


Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan


Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips

Practice Exam Question, Exercises of Law

Questions with correct answers for exam.

Typology: Exercises

2021/2022

Uploaded on 02/24/2022

bridge
bridge 🇺🇸

4.9

(13)

287 documents

1 / 5

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Practice Exam Question
You have 10 minutes. In that time, 1) read the call of the question,
2) read the fact pattern carefully, and 3) use the left margin to list
the issues you see, in the order you would analyze them in your full
answer.
Baker is a renowned pastry chef. Café, a sole proprietorship, is a
well-known restaurant in need of hiring a pastry chef. Baker and
Café’s Owner had extensive conversations regarding Baker
coming to work at Café. On May 1, a week after those
conversations occurred, Baker sent Café a signed letter dated May
1 stating, “I will work for Café as a head pastry chef for two years
for an annual salary of $100,000.”
On the morning of May 7, Café’s Owner telephoned Baker and
said, “The $100,000 is pretty stiff. Could you possibly consider
working for less”? Baker replied: “I am a renowned pastry chef. I
will not work for any less.”
Later that morning, Café’s Owner sent Baker a signed letter by
regular mail stating: “You obviously think you are too good for my
restaurant. I am no longer interested in hiring you to work at Café.”
Later that afternoon, Café’s Owner had a change of heart and sent
Baker a registered, express-mail signed letter stating: “Okay, if you
really won’t work for less, I agree to pay you the $100,000 a year
you demand to work as head pastry chef at Café for two years.”
On May 10, the registered, express-mail letter was delivered to
Baker’s office. The regular mail letter containing the rejection was
still on its way. Baker accepted delivery of the registered,
express-mail letter from the postal carrier and placed it on his desk
without opening it.
On May 11, before Baker read the registered, express-mail letter
on his desk, he accepted an offer to work for Restaurant. As a
courtesy, Baker called Café’s Owner and said, “Sorry, I just took a
job at Restaurant. Too bad you couldn’t afford me.” Café’s Owner
responded, “You can’t work for Restaurant, I already accepted
your offer to work for Café for $100,000 a year.”
Does Café have a contract with Baker? Explain.
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Practice Exam Question and more Exercises Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Practice Exam Question

You have 10 minutes. In that time, 1) read the call of the question,

2) read the fact pattern carefully, and 3) use the left margin to list

the issues you see, in the order you would analyze them in your full

answer.

Baker is a renowned pastry chef. Café, a sole proprietorship, is a

well-known restaurant in need of hiring a pastry chef. Baker and

Café’s Owner had extensive conversations regarding Baker

coming to work at Café. On May 1, a week after those

conversations occurred, Baker sent Café a signed letter dated May

1 stating, “I will work for Café as a head pastry chef for two years

for an annual salary of $100,000.”

On the morning of May 7, Café’s Owner telephoned Baker and

said, “The $100,000 is pretty stiff. Could you possibly consider

working for less”? Baker replied: “I am a renowned pastry chef. I

will not work for any less.”

Later that morning, Café’s Owner sent Baker a signed letter by

regular mail stating: “You obviously think you are too good for my

restaurant. I am no longer interested in hiring you to work at Café.”

Later that afternoon, Café’s Owner had a change of heart and sent

Baker a registered, express-mail signed letter stating: “Okay, if you

really won’t work for less, I agree to pay you the $100,000 a year

you demand to work as head pastry chef at Café for two years.”

On May 10, the registered, express-mail letter was delivered to

Baker’s office. The regular mail letter containing the rejection was

still on its way. Baker accepted delivery of the registered,

express-mail letter from the postal carrier and placed it on his desk

without opening it.

On May 11, before Baker read the registered, express-mail letter

on his desk, he accepted an offer to work for Restaurant. As a

courtesy, Baker called Café’s Owner and said, “Sorry, I just took a

job at Restaurant. Too bad you couldn’t afford me.” Café’s Owner

responded, “You can’t work for Restaurant, I already accepted

your offer to work for Café for $100,000 a year.”

Does Café have a contract with Baker? Explain.

Answer A Issue: This issue here is whether the baker and the owner of the café formed a valid contract, including whether they had any defense, whether the statute of frauds aplplies, and whether promisee really accepted. Rule: The Restatement provides: An Agreement is a manifestation of mutual assent on the pad of two or more persons. A bargain is an agreement toexchange promises or to exchange a promise for a performance or to exchange performances.... Except as stated in Subsection (2), the formation of a contract requires a bargain in which there is a manifestation of mutual assent to the exchange and a consideration.... Manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange requires that each party either make a promise or begin or render a performance.... The manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange ordinarily takes the form of an offer or proposal by one party followed by an acceptance by the other party or parties. Therefore, to be valid, a contract must include a valid offer, a valid acceptance, and consideration. An offer is valid if it clearly expresses a promise or the offeror undertakes a performance that can be seen as an offer and a valid offer must contain the terms of the promise and those terms must be definite and certain. Also, the offer must be comunicated to the offeree.Assuming there is an offer, the next requirement is that the offer be accepted. To accept an offer validly, the offeree must manifest asset to the offer’s terms, in the way prescribed by the offer. Another way to put the rule for offer and acceptance is that there must be a “meeting of the minds” between the parties. Next, a valid contract must be supported by consideration. As the Restatement quote above points out, consideration is “The manifestation of mutual assent to an exchange ordinarily takes the form of an offer or proposal by one party followed by an acceptance by the other party or parties.” More rules that are important include: contracts are not valid is they are formed under duress, which is when one party “improperly threatens the other party in a way that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative than to agree to the contract. Other defenses to contract formation include fraud or lack of capacity. finally, a very important consideration that must be addressed is whether the Statute of Frauds applies. The SF applies to contracts that are for the buying of property, or are related to debts, or in contemplation of marriage, or are for contracts that can be comlpeted within a year. If the SF applies, then the contract must be in writing and signed by the party making the promise. The writing must include the essential terms of the agreement, including the identity of the party who charged and a description of the contract’s subject matter.Also, remember that acceptance is valid on dispatch while rejection is valid on receipt, which is the mail box rule. But its important to know that the mail box rule changes if the offer sends out both an acceptance and a rejection. In that case, whichever letter the offeror reads first is valid. Application: In this case, they probable have a valid contract. The mail box rule doesn’t apply because owner sent two letters. The baker got the acceptance letter first. It may be a problem that he didn’t read the letter before taking another job. He could argue that he didn’t accept the contract until reading the second letter, and he could win that argument. If he loses then they have a contract because the offeror’s letter passes the Statute of Frauds test. It puts the contract in writing and is signed by the Baker, so the SF is satisfied. If the owners response was actually a counterofficer than no valid offer because the counteroffer ended the offer and so there was no meeting of the minds every. Conclusion: Unless the baker can show that the owner’s acceptance letter wasn’t efective until he actually read it, the parties have a valid contract.

The Chart Below Compares Answers A and B

Skill Answer A Answer B

Preparation Gets the law wrong. (Under the relevant rule, it doesn’t matter when Baker read the acceptance, only when he received it.) Gets the law right. Analysis Regurgitates black letter law, including block quotes. Coping down long rules won’t earn points! Use the law, don’t just recite it. Uses the black letter law to analyze the facts; emphasizes the reasons for writer’s conclusions, using the facts Analysis Application section is underdeveloped. Application of law to facts should be most of your answer. If you highlight all sentences of application in B, you can see application is most of the answer. Writer uses facts with specificity. Analysis Misses some of the smaller issues. (Doesn’t address remedies or start by saying the common law, not U.C.C., applies to service contracts Sees and addresses all relevant issues. Gives small issues short treatment, but includes them. Organization Answer is one huge IRAC. IRAC should be used for single issues. Writer identifies the various legal issues presented by the facts and IRACs each one individually Organization Writer uses very long paragraphs so individual issues and points are hard to find. The only headings are organization headings for the parts of IRAC Writer uses short paragraphs and headings to flag issues, not the parts of IRAC. Writing Labels for parties are confusing and inconsistent Labels for parties are clear, easy to spot, consistent Writing Writing has many careless errors, and at least one potentially impacts the writer’s grade (can instead of can’t when referencing contracts that can’t be completed within a year. Bad impression hurts you. Writing is more polished. Most professors won’t focus on writing and will work to see what you understood, but clear writing maximize odds that what you know will get across

EXAM DOs:

Preparation

Start studying early

Study effectively and actively

Know the law well so you can spot all legal

issues in fact patterns and recall and use the

relevant rules

Analysis

Briefly but accurately state the relevant rules

Make application of law to facts your

primary focus

Articulate the reasons for your conclusions

Spot and address all relevant issues, even if

only briefly for easy issues

Explore both sides if there are two sides

Organization

IRAC individual issues

Use short substantive headings

Use short paragraphs

Writing

Write in short sentences and use simple

words

Save some time to reread and edit out bad

writing errors

Pick and consistently use clear labels for

parties

EXAM DON’Ts:

Preparation

Start too late

Spend too much time (re)reading

Assume “open book” means you don’t need

to know law well before exam

Analysis

Regurgitate the law in quotes or long

passages

Assume professor can read your thoughts

Recite rules not relevant to fact pattern

“Kitchen sink” all the law you know,

relevant or not

Treat application as an afterthought

Miss relevant issues

Ignore significant counter arguments

Organization

IRAC the whole essay answer

Make “IRAC” parts your headings

Have long, hard-to-read paragraphs

Writing

Use long wordy sentences and fancy words

Manage time so that you can’t fix bad

writing errors

Be inconsistent/sloppy/unclear with party

labels