Contracts (Exam-level) Question Pack - Questions

1. A homeowner met with a landscaper at the property to discuss regrading the backyard and installing new turf. The homeowner explained that the uneven terrain made mowing hazardous and asked for a comprehensive solution, including soil leveling, drainage adjustments, and high-grade sod. After evaluating the site, the landscaper replied, “I can handle it for $6,000, start next Monday, and finish in two weeks.”

The homeowner called later that evening to confirm and the landscaper texted back, “Works for me. I’ll order materials and be there Monday at dawn.” The landscaper then mobilized his crew, rented equipment, and declined other jobs in reliance on the agreement. The following Sunday, the landscaper called to cancel, citing a more lucrative contract elsewhere.

The homeowner hired another firm for $7,500, expending more time and money, and sued the original landscaper for breach. The landscaper argued that no formal written contract existed and that handshake agreements were not binding without detailed specifications.

Is the homeowner likely to prevail in the breach of contract claim?

  1. No, because the handshake agreement omitted detailed scope and material warranties.
  2. No, because a service contract exceeding $500 requires a signed writing under the Statute of Frauds.
  3. Yes, because the landscaper made a definite offer that the homeowner accepted, and the subsequent reliance confirmed a contract.
  4. Yes, because the homeowner’s reliance estops the landscaper from denying formation.

2. A custom furniture maker contracted with a design firm to produce twenty walnut dining tables, specifying a rare sourced walnut grade presumed available. The written order detailed dimensions, finish, and assembly instructions but did not address wood provenance. Both parties assumed local mills stocked the required walnut.

Weeks later, the furniture maker discovered the walnut grade had been discontinued. Sourcing it required importing from overseas with a three-month delay and significantly higher cost. The design firm refused to wait or pay more and demanded cancellation and refunds.

The furniture maker sued for relief under mutual mistake. The design firm countered that the maker assumed risk by not confirming supply and should perform as agreed or face breach consequences.

Is the furniture maker entitled to relief under mutual mistake?

  1. No, because the furniture maker assumed the supply risk by failing to verify availability before contracting.
  2. No, because mutual mistake only applies when performance is impossible, not merely delayed or costlier.
  3. Yes, because both parties shared a mistake about a basic assumption essential to the contract.
  4. Yes, because the risk was unallocated and the mistake materially altered the agreed performance.

3. A retailer under UCC Article 2 contracted to purchase 1,000 specialty light fixtures at $50 each, to be delivered in two shipments of 500 over two weeks. The seller timely delivered the first 500 fixtures, but due to a parts shortage failed to deliver the second batch. The retailer purchased substitute fixtures on the open market at $60 each and incurred $400 in expedited shipping and handling fees.

The retailer sued for breach, seeking damages for the price differential and incidental costs. The seller argued that the retailer’s choice to cover was voluntary and that only incidental damages were recoverable.

How much is the retailer likely entitled to recover under UCC §§ 2-713 and 2-715?

  1. $400, representing only incidental shipping and handling costs.
  2. $5,000, representing the price differential from market cover.
  3. $5,400, combining price differential and incidental expenses.
  4. More than $5,400, including consequential lost profits.

4. A publishing house contracted with a printer to deliver 20,000 promotional booklets by May 1 for distribution at a national conference. The contract explicitly stated “time is of the essence” and included liquidated damages of $1,000 per day late. The printer experienced a machine breakdown and delivered on May 5, after four days of repair and testing.

The publisher lost major marketing opportunities at the conference and sought both the liquidated damages and additional lost-profits damages of $25,000. The printer argued that the machine failure was unforeseeable and that liquidated damages alone should apply.

Does the publisher have a valid claim for breach and broader damages?

  1. No, because the delay was caused by an unforeseen mechanical breakdown.
  2. Yes, because the “time is of the essence” clause made timely delivery a condition, triggering breach.
  3. No, because liquidated damages preclude recovery of additional lost profits.
  4. Yes, because machine failures never excuse performance under an express deadline.

5. A tenant leased retail space for three years at $4,000 per month. Eighteen months in, the tenant terminated the lease early, citing business downturn, and vacated the premises without notice. The landlord immediately advertised the vacancy but did not receive a new tenant until four months later, when the space rented at $3,800 per month for the remaining three months.

The landlord sued the original tenant for three months of lost rent at $4,000 plus a $200 monthly shortfall over the subsequent three months. The tenant argued the landlord failed to mitigate by re-renting at a significantly lower rate and could only recover three months of unpaid rent.

What is the proper measure of damages in light of the landlord's duty to mitigate?

  1. $12,000, representing only the unpaid rent during vacancy.
  2. $12,600, combining unpaid rent and the shortfall from re-rental.
  3. $0, because mitigation bars any recovery once the premises are re-let.
  4. $13,000, reflecting full original rent for the entire post-abandonment period.

6. A software firm and a client entered a written agreement for the development of a custom analytics dashboard and ongoing maintenance support. The contract detailed deliverables, milestones, and total fees, but made no reference to response‐time commitments or uptime guarantees. During pre-contract negotiations, the firm’s lead engineer emailed the client assuring “24-hour response for any critical issues.”

Over the next year, the dashboard went live and the client filed numerous tickets. When a critical outage occurred, the client sent a priority alert and did not receive a response for 72 hours, during which it lost significant sales data and faced reputational harm. The client demanded compensation for the downtime.

The software firm refused, pointing to the silence of the written agreement on response times and insisting the engineer’s emails were preliminary discussions. The client sued, seeking to introduce the negotiation emails to establish the 24-hour commitment.

Can the client introduce the engineer’s emails under the parol evidence rule?

  1. Parol evidence is barred because the writing is fully integrated.
  2. Parol evidence is admissible to supplement a partially integrated agreement with consistent additional terms.
  3. Parol evidence must be excluded because it contradicts the contract’s silence on support metrics.
  4. Parol evidence may be admitted only to prove fraud, duress, or mistake.

7. A landscape maintenance company contracted to perform weekly lawn care for a homeowner, including mowing, edging, and hedge trimming. The company owned a specialized commercial mower critical to service quality. One evening, the mower was destroyed in an accidental warehouse fire.

Upon learning of the loss, the company immediately notified the homeowner and offered to rent a comparable mower at additional daily cost to fulfill the weekly schedule. The homeowner refused any surcharge and sued for breach when the company did not return.

The maintenance company argued performance was excused by impossibility because its unique equipment was destroyed by an unforeseen event beyond its control.

Is the company excused from performance based on impossibility?

  1. Yes, because destruction of unique equipment makes performance impossible and excuses duty.
  2. No, because the company could have rented substitute equipment to perform.
  3. Yes, because frustration of purpose applies when an unforeseen event destroys underlying assumptions.
  4. No, because the company assumed the risk of damage to its own equipment.

8. A homeowner contracted with a tiling contractor to install slate flooring throughout the entry, kitchen, and powder room for $18,000, with completion required by July 1. The written contract included a liquidated-damages clause providing “$500 per calendar day for each day installation extends beyond July 1, a reasonable estimate of homeowner’s losses.”

The contractor completed the work on July 6. The homeowner withheld $2,500 from the final payment, applying the liquidated-damages provision. The contractor sued for the balance, contending the clause was an unenforceable penalty.

Is the $500-per-day provision likely enforceable as liquidated damages?

  1. The clause is unenforceable because it exceeds the contractor’s expected profit.
  2. The clause is unenforceable because it penalizes rather than compensates.
  3. The clause is enforceable because it reflects a reasonable pre-estimate of actual harm from delay.
  4. The clause is enforceable only if the homeowner proves actual daily losses.

9. A publishing startup signed a written contract with a paper supplier after the supplier’s sales representative orally represented that its recycled cardstock met required fire-safety standards. The contract contained a complete-integration clause stating it embodied “the entire agreement between the parties.” After delivery, the startup discovered the paper lacked certification and could not be used, incurring facility compliance costs.

The supplier insisted the integration clause barred any claim based on pre-contract statements. The startup countered that fraud in the inducement is an exception to the parol-evidence rule and sought to introduce the rep’s false assurances.

Can the startup introduce the rep’s pre-contract statement to support its claim?

  1. No, because the integration clause bars any prior inconsistent statements.
  2. Yes, because fraudulent inducement claims fall outside the parol-evidence rule.
  3. No, because misrepresentation claims must be supported by a separate written guarantee.
  4. Yes, because UCC integration rules do not preclude fraud exceptions.

10. A real-estate developer hired an architect under a written agreement to draft plans for a mixed-use building. The contract did not address construction-phase supervision. Midway through construction, the developer requested the architect provide on-site supervision and review contractor change orders for an additional $15,000. The architect agreed orally and performed three months of supervision.

When billed, the developer refused to pay, claiming the supervision was within the architect’s original duties and no new consideration supported the promise. The architect sued for breach of the supplemental promise.

Is the oral agreement for additional compensation enforceable?

  1. No, because supervision was implied in the original contract scope.
  2. No, because modifications to service agreements require a signed writing under the Statute of Frauds.
  3. Yes, because the architect provided new services beyond the original contract scope in exchange for the additional fee.
  4. Yes, because UCC principles allow modifications without consideration.

11. A homeowner contracted with a security-system installer to outfit his residence with sensors, cameras, and monitoring service. The written contract stated “installation shall provide safety benefits to the homeowner and his elderly mother-in-law residing on the premises, for whose security the homeowner acts.” After a break-in, the monitoring system failed to alert authorities and the mother-in-law suffered harm.

The mother-in-law sued the installer for breach of contract. The installer argued she lacked privity and was only an incidental beneficiary. The mother-in-law contended she was an intended third-party beneficiary entitled to enforce the contract’s security obligations.

Does the mother-in-law have standing to enforce the contract as an intended third-party beneficiary?

  1. No, because the mother-in-law was only indirectly benefited and not specifically named.
  2. No, because privity is required in all contract actions.
  3. Yes, because the contract expressly identified her as a protected beneficiary.
  4. Yes, because all occupants automatically qualify as intended beneficiaries of security contracts.

12. A museum contracted with a restoration specialist to refurbish several historical canvases before the launch of a major exhibit. The written agreement stated that the specialist would complete all restoration work by March 15 and that any delay would result in a $5,000 deduction from the final payment. The specialist agreed, noting that she would begin work immediately and deliver all items by the deadline.

Six weeks into the project, a rare pigment she needed for one of the pieces became unavailable due to supply-chain issues. She informed the museum and proposed substituting a nearly identical compound used in other high-grade restorations. The museum refused, stating that its curatorial board had approved the exhibit based on historically accurate techniques and that the substitution was unacceptable.

The museum then canceled the contract, citing breach and refusing payment for the work completed. The specialist sued, arguing that her performance was excused under impracticability and that she was entitled to restitution for restoration work already performed on the other canvases.

Was the specialist’s failure to use the rare pigment excused under the doctrine of impracticability?

  1. No, because the pigment shortage was foreseeable and does not excuse the specialist’s performance.
  2. Yes, because the museum’s refusal to accept reasonable substitution made completion impracticable.
  3. No, because restoration contracts require strict compliance with original terms.
  4. Yes, because she substantially performed and may recover in restitution for the completed restorations.

13. A local charity and a printing company entered into a written contract for the design and delivery of 10,000 event posters at $2 per poster, to be delivered no later than May 1. The charity specified during negotiations that it needed the posters by that date for street distribution ahead of a major fundraiser. The printing company delivered the posters on May 4, citing a mechanical breakdown that delayed production.

The charity had already missed its window for promotional distribution and claimed it lost significant donor engagement due to the delay. It sued for breach of contract and sought $20,000 in lost contributions that its board estimated were tied to the missed promotional opportunity.

The printing company argued that it fulfilled the contract as best it could and that the charity had never made clear the scope of consequences tied to late delivery.

Are the charity’s claimed consequential damages recoverable?

  1. No, because delayed performance does not warrant consequential damages absent knowledge of special harm.
  2. Yes, because the printer breached a delivery deadline in a time-sensitive contract.
  3. No, because the charity could have mitigated its loss with alternate outreach methods.
  4. Yes, because all losses from late delivery are recoverable if delay exceeds three days.

14. A nonprofit theater company hired a designer to create promotional posters for its spring festival, with an agreed fee of $8,000. The contract required delivery of digital files by February 1 and included no contingency language. In mid-January, the designer informed the company that she was recovering from a car accident and wouldn’t be able to complete the posters until late February. The company responded that it couldn’t wait and hired another designer for $9,500.

In early February, the original designer completed the posters and delivered them, requesting payment. The theater refused, citing breach due to late performance. The designer sued, arguing that her delay was justified by medical necessity and that the theater suffered minimal harm.

Did the designer’s late performance constitute a breach that excuses the theater from payment?

  1. Yes, because the delay deprived the theater of timely materials and required replacement.
  2. No, because illness and injury excuse delay if performance is still possible.
  3. Yes, because time was of the essence and no extension was negotiated.
  4. No, because the theater accepted delivery of the completed posters.

15. A homeowner entered into a contract with a contractor to install a patio for $16,000, with work to begin on June 10 and completion expected by July 1. On June 8, the contractor called to say that his crew was tied up on another job and that they would begin on June 20 instead. The homeowner responded: “That won’t work — the patio is for a July 4 party. I’m canceling and finding someone else.” The contractor sued for breach of contract.

The homeowner argued that the contractor’s delay amounted to repudiation, entitling him to cancel and seek other arrangements. The contractor insisted that a 10-day delay was minor and that he never indicated refusal to perform.

Should the court find the homeowner’s cancellation a breach?

  1. Yes, because the contractor's proposed start date was still within a reasonable window.
  2. No, because the delay interfered with the homeowner’s intended use and justified cancellation.
  3. Yes, because the homeowner had no evidence that the contractor would fail to complete in time.
  4. No, because timing of performance is not considered material in construction contracts.

16. A university bookstore entered into a written agreement with a printer to produce 10,000 course catalogs for $35,000, with delivery scheduled for August 1 before the fall semester. On July 25, the printer contacted the bookstore and said, “We’re running behind — earliest we can deliver is August 15.” The bookstore canceled the order and hired another printer at $42,000 to meet the deadline.

The original printer delivered the catalogs on August 15 and demanded payment. The bookstore refused, and the printer sued for breach of contract, claiming that delay was minor and non-material.

Should the court find that the bookstore acted within its rights in canceling?

  1. No, because the delay was slight and did not prevent final performance.
  2. Yes, because the timing of delivery was essential to the contract’s purpose.
  3. No, because the printer eventually fulfilled the original order.
  4. Yes, because the bookstore suffered financial harm due to delayed delivery.

17. A seller agreed to deliver 500 units of a specialized industrial valve to a buyer by May 1. The written contract stated that “all terms herein shall be strictly enforced.” On April 28, the seller informed the buyer that only 400 valves would be available due to a supplier disruption. The buyer responded, “We’re cancelling. We need full delivery by our stated deadline.” The seller sued for breach.

At trial, the buyer argued that the shortfall was material and interfered with scheduled equipment installation across multiple factories. The seller claimed that partial delivery was reasonable and would have minimized waste.

Should the court hold the buyer liable for breach?

  1. Yes, because partial delivery substantially fulfilled the seller’s obligation.
  2. No, because the buyer’s right to strict performance was contractually preserved.
  3. Yes, because minor deviations in quantity do not excuse the buyer’s rejection.
  4. No, because the buyer had no duty to accept nonconforming goods.

18. A manager agreed to hire a chef for one year at $80,000 to run a new restaurant location. Before the chef started work, the manager learned the location’s permits were delayed and canceled the contract, offering $10,000 in compensation. The chef declined, stating that she had turned down other offers and was entitled to full contractual recovery.

The chef remained unemployed for three months before accepting a different position that paid $75,000 annually. She sued the manager for breach.

What amount is the chef likely to recover?

  1. $5,000.
  2. $10,000.
  3. $15,000.
  4. $80,000.

19. A homeowner agreed in writing to sell his antique table to a neighbor for $3,000. Before pickup, the neighbor visited the house and said, “It looks smaller than I remembered. I’ll pass.” The homeowner replied, “We have a written agreement — you can’t just back out.” The neighbor refused to pay, and the homeowner sued.

At trial, the neighbor argued that the agreement lacked specificity and that no contract was formed due to uncertainty. The homeowner pointed to the written offer, signed acceptance, and clear identification of the table.

Should the court find that a valid contract existed?

  1. No, because physical inspection revealed ambiguity in subject matter.
  2. No, because the neighbor did not accept delivery or make payment.
  3. Yes, because the agreement identified the item, price, and terms of sale.
  4. Yes, because contracts do not require physical inspection to be binding.

20. A flooring company entered into two contracts with a builder — one to install hardwood flooring in a model home and another to supply tiles for bathrooms in three homes. After completing the tile delivery, the company informed the builder it would not perform the hardwood installation due to staffing constraints. The builder refused payment for the tiles, citing overall breach.

At trial, the flooring company demanded payment for the completed tile contract. The builder argued that the two contracts were interdependent and formed part of a unified project.

Should the court require the builder to pay for the tile contract?

  1. No, because breach of one contract voids related obligations.
  2. Yes, because performance under one contract entitles payment despite failure elsewhere.
  3. No, because simultaneous negotiation creates a presumption of interdependence.
  4. Yes, because the contracts had separate scopes, terms, and consideration.

21. A startup marketing agency hired a software developer to create a custom CRM system tailored to its client onboarding process. The written contract stated that the final product must be delivered by July 1, with payment of $25,000 due upon satisfactory completion. The contract also contained a clause stating, “All modifications must be in writing and signed by both parties.”

On June 1, the developer emailed the agency requesting an extension to July 15, citing delays in testing new features. A partner at the agency replied, “No worries — July 15 works.” The developer delivered the software on July 14, but the agency refused to pay, claiming the late delivery voided the contract. The developer sued for breach.

At trial, the agency argues that the delivery date was contractually binding and that the extension was invalid without a signed writing.

Should the developer prevail?

  1. Yes, because the agency waived timely delivery by agreeing to the extension.
  2. No, because the modification violated the contract’s signed-writing clause.
  3. No, because time was of the essence and the breach was material.
  4. Yes, because substantial performance occurred and delay was minimal.

22. A manufacturing company agreed to purchase 20 industrial compressors from a supplier at $7,000 apiece, with delivery scheduled over two months. The contract required payment within five days of each delivery. After the first delivery of five units, the manufacturer sent payment eight days later. The supplier complained about the delay but continued with the second delivery.

The manufacturer was then late again with payment — sending funds ten days after the second shipment. The supplier immediately notified the manufacturer that it would cancel the remainder of the contract due to repeated late payments and sued to enforce the cancellation.

Is the supplier entitled to cancel the contract?

  1. Yes, because the manufacturer’s repeated late payments constituted a material breach.
  2. No, because the supplier accepted late payment without enforcing the deadline previously.
  3. Yes, because payment terms are strictly construed under commercial contracts.
  4. No, because partial performance prohibits cancellation without notice and opportunity to cure.

23. A publisher hired a freelance designer to format ten travel books, with payment of $1,200 per book upon completion. The written contract allowed the designer to subcontract work with publisher approval. The designer assigned four books to another designer without informing the publisher, who discovered the change after publication. The substitute designer had completed quality work, and all deadlines were met.

The publisher refused payment for those four books, citing unauthorized delegation in breach of contract. The freelancer sued for full payment.

Which statement best describes the legal effect of the delegation?

  1. The freelancer may recover for all ten books, because performance was properly completed.
  2. The freelancer breached the agreement and is entitled only to payment for the six undisputed books.
  3. The freelancer cannot recover at all due to material breach of a nondelegable obligation.
  4. The freelancer breached the agreement, but restitution may be available for the four delivered books.

24. A sports arena hired a lighting technician to install an upgraded system ahead of a concert, for $18,000. The technician completed half the work but missed a critical deadline, leading the arena to hire another team at $15,000 to finish the job. The arena refused to pay the technician anything, claiming breach. The technician sued for partial payment.

At trial, evidence showed that the technician’s work was properly installed and used during the event. The court must calculate a reasonable remedy based on contract breach and quantum meruit principles.

What amount is the technician most likely to recover?

  1. $9,000.
  2. $7,500.
  3. $0.
  4. $3,000.

25. A small business signed a contract with a web developer to build a new site for $6,000, payable in two $3,000 installments — one at project start and one upon completion. After beginning work, the developer learned that the business had misrepresented its budget and planned to delay final payment indefinitely. The developer stopped work after three weeks and refused to continue unless payment was guaranteed. The business sued for breach.

The developer claimed that the misrepresentation and uncertain payment created insecurity, justifying suspension of performance. The business argued that no breach had occurred, and the developer was obligated to finish.

Should the court find the developer breached the contract?

  1. No, because the developer was entitled to demand assurance after learning of financial uncertainty.
  2. Yes, because the developer walked away before completing the agreed scope of work.
  3. Yes, because payment disputes do not excuse performance without notice.
  4. No, because partial performance automatically extends the payment deadline.

26. A real estate developer hired an architect to design a mixed-use building, agreeing to pay $60,000 in three installments tied to completion milestones: initial concept ($20,000), structural drawings ($20,000), and final permitting plans ($20,000). The contract also contained a clause requiring written approval for subcontracting. After completing the initial concept and receiving payment, the architect learned that a specialist was needed to complete the structural drawings. Without informing the developer, she hired a third-party engineer to produce those plans.

The developer accepted and paid for the second milestone without raising concerns. However, when he discovered that the engineer had completed a significant portion of the structural work, he refused to pay the final installment, claiming breach of the non-subcontracting clause. The architect sued for breach, stating that the developer received everything he paid for and had raised no objections previously.

At trial, the developer argued that the unauthorized delegation invalidated the contract and released him from paying the final $20,000, even though the final plans had been delivered on time. The architect maintained that she remained responsible and that delegation caused no harm.

Should the court find that the developer breached the contract?

  1. Yes, because the developer received full performance and suffered no prejudice.
  2. No, because the architect breached a material term by subcontracting without approval.
  3. No, because the developer never expressly accepted the final plans.
  4. Yes, because the delegation occurred only after the developer had already approved the prior work.

27. A small firm hired a consultant to help prepare and submit a grant application to a government agency. They agreed to a fee of $10,000, payable upon submission. The consultant began work and communicated regularly. Two weeks before the deadline, the firm’s manager emailed, “We’re too busy internally — we’re going to pause and handle this in-house instead.” The consultant responded, “Understood — let me know if you change your mind.”

The firm never submitted an application and never paid the consultant. Six weeks later, the consultant sued for breach of contract, claiming she had performed substantial preliminary work and cleared her schedule for this engagement. The firm argued that no formal proposal had been submitted and therefore no payment was triggered.

At trial, evidence showed that the consultant had spent over 40 hours preparing materials, drafted portions of the application, and provided a full framework for submission. She never received notice that her services were no longer needed, aside from the manager’s vague email.

Is the consultant likely to recover?

  1. Yes, because the firm breached by cancelling the agreement without cause.
  2. No, because the contract required full submission before payment.
  3. Yes, because part performance creates a claim for quantum meruit even absent full completion.
  4. No, because the consultant did not explicitly object or continue working.

28. A distillery ordered 3,000 custom glass bottles from a supplier for an upcoming product launch, with delivery scheduled for June 1 and payment due within ten days of delivery. The written agreement stated that “timely delivery is essential due to seasonal release.” On May 29, the supplier emailed: “We’re facing a production delay — earliest we can ship is June 10.” The distillery replied, “That’s too late — we’ll have to cancel.”

The supplier shipped the bottles on June 10 anyway and demanded payment. The distillery refused, citing breach of the delivery deadline and claiming that the bottles arrived too late for their launch. The supplier sued for breach, arguing that the distillery suffered no loss and had not incurred actual damages from the delay.

Should the court require the distillery to pay?

  1. No, because late delivery breached an essential term of the contract.
  2. Yes, because the supplier ultimately performed and the bottles were usable.
  3. No, because shipment after cancellation is not valid tender.
  4. Yes, because the distillery failed to mitigate losses by using the bottles.

29. A business entered into a contract with an IT company to install a new digital security system in exchange for a $24,000 flat fee. The contract included a clause stating, “Work to be completed by December 1, subject to standard installation delays.” During the installation process, the IT company encountered unforeseen wiring issues and requested a two-week extension. The business agreed by email.

Work was completed December 15, and the business began using the new system immediately. However, when the IT company invoiced for $24,000, the business responded that late completion and unexpected equipment costs had caused disruption and refused to pay more than $16,000. The IT company sued for full payment.

At trial, the business claimed that the agreed extension didn’t cover the total delay and that performance was defective. The IT company showed that all promised features were installed, operational, and used daily.

Should the court find the business liable for the remaining $8,000?

  1. No, because the business suffered economic loss due to delay.
  2. Yes, because the company completed installation and the business accepted and used the system.
  3. No, because performance occurred after the amended deadline.
  4. Yes, because the business never objected to specific equipment costs at the time.

30. A father promised to pay $50,000 to his adult son if the son “avoids all alcohol for one year.” The son accepted and abstained completely for 12 months. At the end of the year, he requested payment, and the father replied, “You didn’t do anything — just avoided something. I’m not paying.” The son sued for breach of contract.

At trial, the father argued that the son did not perform any affirmative act or provide a benefit, so there was no consideration. The son presented testimony showing how he changed habits, withdrew from social groups, and made life adjustments to comply with the agreement.

Is the agreement enforceable?

  1. Yes, because abstaining from a legal activity is valid consideration.
  2. No, because unilateral promises are not enforceable without mutual benefit.
  3. Yes, because the son’s reliance makes the promise binding.
  4. No, because family agreements lack intent to create legal obligations.

31. A contractor and a homeowner entered into a written agreement for the renovation of a guest house at a price of $80,000. The contract specified that work would begin on March 15 and end by May 15, with payments scheduled in thirds—at the start, midpoint, and completion. On March 1, the contractor informed the homeowner that supply delays might push the start date back by several weeks. The homeowner responded, “Then I’m going to cancel. I need this done before summer.”

The contractor replied that supplies would likely arrive in time to begin by April 1 and complete the project by June. The homeowner did not respond. The contractor received the materials March 28 and attempted to begin work on April 1, but was refused access to the property. The contractor sued, claiming breach and lost profits.

At trial, the homeowner argued that no contract existed because the delay constituted a failure to perform. The contractor asserted that communication never confirmed cancellation and that there had been no definitive repudiation.

Is the contractor likely to prevail?

  1. Yes, because the homeowner failed to formally revoke the agreement.
  2. No, because the homeowner’s email constituted clear cancellation.
  3. No, because delays in performance relieve both parties.
  4. Yes, because the contractor attempted timely performance and received no response.

32. A musician agreed to record vocals for a commercial jingle in exchange for a $3,000 fee, payable after final delivery. The agreement stated that the client would provide instrumental tracks by June 1 and the artist would return completed vocals by June 15. The client delivered tracks on June 3, and the artist returned the vocals on June 17. The client accepted them and ran the jingle in online ads but refused to pay, citing late delivery.

The artist sued for breach, claiming that the delay was minor and had not caused any harm. The client argued that the late vocals voided the agreement and justified nonpayment. Evidence showed that the client never communicated dissatisfaction and used the recording without reservation.

At trial, the client maintained that strict performance was required under the original deadline. The artist presented communications showing the client approved the final track and expressed excitement over the campaign.

Should the court find that the artist is owed payment?

  1. No, because the vocals were delivered late and violated the agreement.
  2. Yes, because the client accepted and used the recording without objection.
  3. No, because failure to meet a deadline voids consideration.
  4. Yes, because slight delay does not negate commercial performance obligations.

33. A clothing retailer agreed to purchase 5,000 jackets from a manufacturer for $30 per unit, delivery set for September 1 to coincide with fall inventory. The contract stated “full delivery required by deadline.” On August 30, the manufacturer delivered 4,200 jackets and indicated the remainder would arrive in one week. The retailer refused the partial shipment and terminated the contract.

The manufacturer sued, arguing that the retailer should have accepted the initial delivery and permitted reasonable delay for the remainder. The retailer pointed to the strict deadline and the fact that promotional materials and inventory planning depended on the full shipment arriving at once.

The court was asked to determine whether the retailer’s refusal and cancellation constituted breach or proper rejection under the UCC.

Which statement best describes the retailer’s rights?

  1. The retailer breached by rejecting otherwise reasonable performance.
  2. The retailer was required to accept the partial shipment and demand cure.
  3. The retailer properly rejected the delivery under the UCC’s perfect tender rule.
  4. The retailer cannot cancel unless damages are proven.

34. A restaurant owner orally promised to pay a vendor $10,000 if the vendor would exclusively supply produce to the restaurant for six months. The vendor agreed and began weekly deliveries starting June 1. No written contract was signed, but both parties referred to the exclusive agreement in emails and shared invoices identifying the restaurant as the sole customer.

Four months later, the restaurant began buying from other suppliers, citing concerns about rising costs. The vendor sued for breach of contract, pointing to lost expected profits and investments made to accommodate the restaurant’s orders. The restaurant argued that the agreement was unenforceable under the Statute of Frauds because it wasn’t in writing.

At trial, the vendor presented emails and records showing performance, exclusivity, and reliance. The restaurant claimed that the agreement could not be proven beyond oral statements.

Is the vendor likely to succeed?

  1. Yes, because full performance removes the need for written proof.
  2. No, because exclusivity agreements over one month must be in writing.
  3. Yes, because partial performance and written references make the agreement enforceable.
  4. No, because oral contracts are unenforceable when future duration exceeds three months.

35. A security firm agreed to provide overnight guards for a factory for $4,000 per week over a six-month period. After three months, the factory’s manager notified the firm that budget cuts required reducing shifts and requested that one less guard be provided per night. The firm agreed, and both parties continued under the new arrangement without modifying payment terms.

At the end of the contract, the factory refused to pay the final month’s invoice, arguing that reduced staffing meant the firm had not performed its obligations and overcharged for services. The firm sued for breach of contract and enforcement of the final invoice.

At trial, the factory argued that the original contract required two guards per shift, and reduction was not formally approved. The firm responded that performance matched what the factory requested, and no objection to payment terms was raised at the time.

Should the court enforce the final invoice?

  1. No, because performance differed from original terms without written modification.
  2. Yes, because both parties voluntarily adjusted performance and continued under the existing rate.
  3. No, because payment terms were implicitly altered by reduced service.
  4. Yes, because the original contract was vague and oral discussions clarified duties.

36. A startup contracted with a design firm to create a suite of visual assets for its launch campaign, including logo work, infographics, and animated videos. The agreement set a total payment of $25,000, with installments due every two weeks based on the firm's internal progress schedule. The startup paid the first $5,000 but missed the second payment entirely. The design firm continued work for another week before halting performance and demanding immediate payment of the missed installment.

The startup responded that it was securing new funding and would make the payment the following month. The firm declined to continue without payment and sued for breach, claiming that the late payment materially undermined its ability to deliver the remaining work. The startup argued that a short delay was not sufficient to justify canceling the contract.

At trial, the court examined whether the missed payment justified the firm’s decision to stop work and whether refusal to continue amounted to breach or a valid suspension.

Should the design firm be found in breach for halting performance?

  1. No, because the missed payment gave the firm grounds to suspend work.
  2. Yes, because the firm stopped before confirming that the client would not pay.
  3. No, because short payment delays are common and excused in creative contracts.
  4. Yes, because performance must continue unless failure to pay causes total impossibility.

37. A specialty contractor entered into an agreement to fabricate custom signage for a museum exhibit, with the museum agreeing to pay $4,000 for design and installation. The contract allowed the contractor to delegate work to third parties with written notice. Midway through the project, the contractor subcontracted the manufacturing phase to a firm he had used before, but failed to notify the museum.

The museum accepted delivery and paid the first $2,000 upon installation. Later, the exhibit’s signage malfunctioned, and an investigation revealed that the subcontracted firm used cheaper components not disclosed in the design specs. The museum refused to pay the remaining $2,000, claiming breach of contract due to unauthorized delegation and defective materials.

Which of the following statements best describes the contractor’s legal position?

  1. He may recover full payment because the museum accepted and used the signage.
  2. He materially breached and cannot recover due to unauthorized delegation.
  3. He may be entitled to restitution for partial performance, even if in breach.
  4. He may enforce the contract only if delegation was immaterial and museum suffered no harm.

38. A distributor entered into a contract with a beverage company to stock 10,000 cases of a new drink across multiple regional stores. The contract specified full delivery by August 1 to coincide with national launch. On July 15, the distributor emailed, “Due to warehouse constraints, we’ll only be able to stock half the product.” The beverage company replied, “If you can’t meet our needs, we’ll cancel and find someone else.”

The distributor responded the next day, saying it would try to improve capacity, but it was unlikely it could meet the full order. The beverage company terminated the contract on July 20 and secured another distributor. The first distributor sued for breach, claiming it was never formally given time to cure performance concerns.

At trial, the company argued that the distributor’s initial message constituted anticipatory breach and justified cancellation.

Did the beverage company act within its rights in terminating the contract?

  1. No, because the distributor had not definitively repudiated the contract.
  2. Yes, because email statements are considered binding under the UCC.
  3. No, because the company was required to allow time for cure.
  4. Yes, because the distributor's statement created reasonable insecurity and justified cancellation. 

39. A tenant leased commercial space for three years, with a clause allowing assignment upon landlord approval, “which shall not be unreasonably withheld.” After 18 months, the tenant sought to assign the lease to a bakery, which had strong credit and prior business experience. The landlord refused, stating that he preferred only non-food tenants in the building.

The tenant sued for breach of lease terms, seeking specific performance of the assignment clause and damages for lost opportunity. The landlord maintained that his preference was based on property aesthetics and avoided odors associated with baking.

Which of the following best describes the legal effect of the landlord’s refusal?

  1. The landlord was entitled to deny assignment for aesthetic reasons.
  2. The refusal violated the lease because it lacked commercially reasonable justification.
  3. The landlord was permitted to reject based on property type and internal policy.
  4. The lease created no enforceable obligation unless assignment harmed the property.

40. A publishing company offered an author $50,000 for the exclusive rights to adapt her novel into a graphic format. The parties exchanged emails, and the author replied, “I’m thrilled — let’s finalize this next week.” Before signing, the author received a better offer from a second publisher for $70,000 and accepted it. The first publisher sued, claiming breach and seeking specific performance or damages.

In court, the author argued that the original exchange lacked binding terms and expressed only intent to negotiate. The publisher pointed to past deals formed over email and industry custom supporting such exchanges as contracts.

Which of the following statements best describes the likely outcome?

  1. The author is liable because her reply constituted acceptance.
  2. The publisher has no claim because there was no final signed agreement.
  3. The author’s message did not form a contract because it conditioned finalization on future steps.
  4. The publisher is entitled to damages based on reliance and lost expectation.

41. A contractor agreed to build a custom deck for a homeowner for $12,000, with payment due in two equal installments—half at the start and half upon completion. After completing 75% of the work, the contractor discovered that the homeowner had begun hiring another crew to finish the deck, citing delays and dissatisfaction. The homeowner refused to pay the second installment, stating that the contractor had breached by failing to meet expected progress.

The contractor sued, asserting that the work was on track and nearly complete when the homeowner refused further cooperation. The homeowner argued that her dissatisfaction and concern over the timeline justified bringing in a replacement team and withholding payment.

At trial, the court considered whether the homeowner's actions constituted breach or permissible termination based on anticipated failure to perform.

Did the homeowner breach the contract?

  1. Yes, because hiring another crew interfered with the contractor’s right to complete performance.
  2. No, because dissatisfaction with progress justified partial termination.
  3. Yes, because refusal to pay and blocking access occurred before actual breach.
  4. No, because the contractor did not complete the job within a reasonable timeframe.

42. A company entered into a contract with an audio engineer to provide sound services for three weekend festivals. The contract specified $2,000 per event, for a total of $6,000, with a $1,000 advance payable up front. After performing the first event, the engineer was hospitalized and unable to complete the remaining two. The company hired a replacement engineer for $2,500 per event and refused to pay anything further to the original engineer.

At trial, the engineer sued for partial compensation based on completed work and argued that the replacement costs should not affect his recovery. The company countered that hiring a more expensive replacement justified offsetting all amounts and withholding payment.

How much is the engineer likely entitled to recover?

  1. $1,000.
  2. $2,000.
  3. $3,500.
  4. $4,000.

43. A homeowner hired a painter to repaint the exterior of her home. The written agreement stated that payment would be made only upon “full and satisfactory completion.” The painter finished the work but was denied payment because the homeowner felt that the color looked too “flat and uneven.” The painter insisted that the paint was applied evenly and that the selected color had a matte finish by design.

The homeowner refused to allow the painter to adjust or touch up the work and did not point to any specific areas of noncompliance. The painter sued, arguing that the work met industry standards and the dissatisfaction was aesthetic, not contractual.

The court was asked to determine whether “satisfactory completion” was a subjective or objective standard in this context.

Which statement best reflects the proper legal standard?

  1. Satisfaction clauses always require subjective approval.
  2. The painter must meet the homeowner’s personal preferences under the clause.
  3. Objective industry standards govern unless the contract ties payment to personal taste.
  4. Courts presume satisfaction clauses are unenforceable unless defined in writing.

44. A printing company assigned a contract to produce event programs for a theater to a subcontractor after entering a separate agreement to focus on larger accounts. The assignment included all rights and obligations and was made without express notice to the theater. The subcontractor completed all work and billed the theater directly, which paid for the first half of the season. When a misprint occurred during the second event, the theater refused further payment, stating that it never approved the change in contractor.

The subcontractor sued, asserting that performance had been accepted and that the theater had benefited without objection. The theater argued that the original contract prohibited assignment without mutual consent.

Should the subcontractor prevail?

  1. No, because the original contract expressly prohibited assignment.
  2. Yes, because the theater accepted and paid for initial performance without protest.
  3. No, because performance under an invalid assignment is unenforceable.
  4. Yes, because assignment of contract rights does not require notice if duties are performed.

45. A vendor agreed to supply seasonal inventory to a garden center, with a clause stating, “Delivery subject to weather conditions affecting crop availability.” In late March, heavy frost damaged early spring crops, and the vendor emailed, “We may be delayed — assessing losses.” On April 10, the vendor shipped only half the agreed quantity. The garden center refused to pay, citing breach and revenue loss during peak season.

At trial, the vendor argued that the clause excused performance due to frost damage and that partial delivery was the best it could manage. The garden center claimed that the clause did not excuse delivery of unaffected items and that more notice was required.

Should the vendor be excused from full performance?

  1. No, because the clause was too vague to excuse breach.
  2. Yes, because the clause tied delivery to crop conditions and seasonal damage occurred.
  3. No, because partial performance does not satisfy commercial contracts absent agreement.
  4. Yes, because weather-related limitations are recognized under UCC commercial impracticability.

46. A nonprofit organization hired an independent grant writer to prepare three proposals in advance of a major donor summit. The contract stated that the grant writer would be paid $10,000 upon submission of all three proposals. The writer completed and submitted two by the deadline, but became ill and did not submit the third. The nonprofit used the first two proposals successfully at the summit and refused payment, claiming incomplete performance.

The writer sued for breach, arguing that the organization accepted and benefitted from her work. The nonprofit responded that the full payment was contingent on submission of all three proposals and that partial performance was contractually insufficient.

Should the court order the nonprofit to pay?

  1. Yes, because quantum meruit allows partial recovery for accepted work.
  2. No, because the contract clearly conditioned payment on full submission.
  3. Yes, because illness excuses strict performance in service contracts.
  4. No, because acceptance does not override a failed condition precedent.

47. A bakery signed a contract to receive 20 crates of organic strawberries from a local farm at $150 per crate. The delivery was scheduled for June 1 to align with seasonal recipes. On June 3, the farm delivered only 16 crates, citing a poor harvest. The bakery accepted the shipment but sued to recover the cost of purchasing four additional crates from another supplier at $180 each.

The farm argued that acceptance waived any right to damages. The bakery replied that the delivery failed to meet quantity and price expectations, and that the farm breached by underdelivering despite accepting a fixed-volume contract.

What amount is the bakery most likely to recover?

  1. $0.
  2. $120.
  3. $600.
  4. $720.

48. A law student hired a tutor to provide weekly sessions for her bar exam preparation for four months. Their contract included a provision that allowed cancellation “with two weeks’ notice” by either party. After eight weeks, the tutor notified the student that she had accepted a teaching job and would discontinue tutoring immediately. The student sued, alleging breach and damages due to lost preparation time and cost of finding a replacement.

The tutor argued that professional opportunity justified early departure and that the student could find another tutor on short notice. Evidence showed the student missed a critical prep window and hired a less experienced substitute at a higher rate.

Is the student likely to prevail?

  1. Yes, because the tutor breached the cancellation clause by failing to provide notice.
  2. No, because professional change excuses obligations under service contracts.
  3. Yes, because timing and reliance created foreseeable harm.
  4. No, because no damages can be proven with certainty.

49. A vintage car owner agreed to sell his restored 1967 convertible to a longtime friend, stating “You can have it for $30,000 — it’s been waiting for someone who appreciates it.” The friend replied, “I accept — I’ll bring a check this weekend.” Before the weekend arrived, another buyer offered $35,000, and the owner sold the car to them instead.

The friend sued, claiming breach of contract. The owner argued that no formal agreement had been signed and that until money changed hands, no deal was binding. Both parties presented their messages and timestamps in court.

Did the friend’s response create a binding agreement?

  1. No, because no consideration was exchanged.
  2. Yes, because the friend's acceptance formed a valid contract.
  3. No, because the offer was vague and invited further negotiation.
  4. Yes, because oral contracts for goods are enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

50. A retail distributor hired a marketing firm to rebrand its image, including packaging, slogans, and social media campaigns. The contract specified a payment of $20,000 contingent on delivery of all assets by April 1. The firm delivered the packaging and slogan by April 1 but completed the social media materials on April 10. The distributor accepted all materials and launched its campaign using the full set.

Two weeks later, the distributor refused payment, stating that the missed deadline violated the contract. The firm sued for breach, presenting correspondence showing that the distributor had reviewed and approved the late materials without objection.

Which of the following best supports the firm’s claim?

  1. Late performance excuses payment if use occurs without objection.
  2. Contract enforcement depends only on economic benefit received.
  3. Acceptance and use of delivered materials may waive timing requirements.
  4. Deadlines are binding only if marked “time is of the essence.”