Contract Error Resolution Options

James telephones Wanda, expressing interest in purchasing her famous chocolate ice cream. Wanda receives a purchase order for * gallons of ice cream from James for $*. On the appointed delivery date, Wanda delivers James * gallons of vanilla ice cream, stating that the contract didn’t specify what flavor James wanted. James sues Wanda for the chocolate ice cream. A court will likely find that James: a. must accept the vanilla ice cream, because the contract had an orally agreed-upon condition precedent. b. must accept the vanilla ice cream, because the contract did not specify the flavor. c. can submit evidence of the written contract because contracts can be subsequently modified. d. can submit evidence of the telephone call expressing interest in chocolate ice cream, even though the contract was ambiguous on which flavor would be purchased.

Judge Macy has reviewed a contract between Martin and Rowan and has determined that the written terms of the contract represent the final agreement between the two parties. According to Judge Macy, their contract is: a. a parol contract. b. an incomplete contract. c. a prenuptial contract. d. an integrated contract.

Max and Juli communicate by text message and Juli agrees to marry Max if he promises to take care of her daughter as well. His final text message reply says, “Of course I will take care of her if you marry me. Love you. Max.” Juli saves the text messages as proof of his love for her. After they marry, Max refuses to take care of Juli’s daughter. Juli attempts to enforce the agreement, but Max argues that it has to be in writing because it is a contract in consideration of marriage. If this ends up in court, the court likely would: a. enforce the agreement, because it is obvious that she would expect him to take care of her daughter before she would marry him. b. not enforce the agreement because text messages would not be sufficient writings. c. enforce the agreement, as copies of the text messages are sufficient writings. d. not enforce the agreement because the terms are unconscionable

Austin has a contract to sell * homemade teddy bears to Ally. The teddy bears typically sell for between $* and $*. Austin delivers the bears to Ally but she refuses to pay, saying she changed her mind and that the contract is not valid because it is missing the price term. Did the price need to be specified in order for this contract to be valid? a. Yes, price is the most important term in a contract for the sale of goods under the UCC, so it must be specified in this contract. b. No, price need not be included in a contract for the sale of goods under the UCC, so long as the quantity is specified. c. No, price is not an essential term in any contract. d. Yes, price is an essential term, so its absence in the writing invalidates the contract.

Gmiendl, Inc., a German company, and Bordeaux Enterprises Co., a French company, verbally agree to a contract for the purchase and sale of plastic bottles. Assume both France and Germany are signatories to the CISG. Is the contract valid? a. Yes, because the parties are from two different nations and no contract law applies. b. No, because the contract violates the Statute of Frauds and requires a writing. c. Yes, because the CISG does not require contracts for sale to be concluded or evidenced by writing. d. No, because the contract requires a signature from each party whenever a multinational contract is formed.