Lsb 3213 1st Edition Lecture 20Current LectureSchedule:- Todayo Review for Exam 2 (with clickers)o Complete extra credit assignment- Exam 2 on Thursdayo In class exam at regular time in regular classroomo Bring your own green scantron form and a pencilo Arrive early to check in with picture IDo 33 questions plus 3 extra credit questions: 100 pointso 10 True/False, 15 short multiple choice, 8 long multiple choiceStudying for Exam 2:- PowerPoints and study guide on D2L- Extra credit assignment on D2L- First step: learn contract law terminology- Second step: apply concepts (review scenarios, examples from class)Material from Exam 1 also on Exam 2:- Four Legal Philosophieso Natural Lawo Legal Realismo Positive Lawo Historical Approach- Common Lawo Judge-made law. Precedent. Stare decisis.Practice Questions:- Focus on principles, not on memorizing the questions- Class notes best study guide- Practice questions are a sampling for discussion purposes- Practice questions must fit on a PowerPoint slideThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.1. Joe has a hand-shake agreement to deliver animal feed to a ranch for $450 per delivery. He will make 6 deliveries, 1 every 3 months. Each delivery costs Joe $50, so his profit margin is 800%. Enforceable contract?a. Yes: meets four criteria- agreement, consideration, capacity, legality; 800% profit not relevant unless there is a chance of fraudb. No: must be in writing if it will take more than a year to complete/ impossible to complete within twelve months2. Julie lists 10 planes for $10 million. Mary offers $5M. Julie counters at $8M. Mary counters at $7M. Julie is silent. Mary hears Julie might sell to Tom, so Mary sends acceptance at $8M to Julie via FedEx. Before receiving FedEx delivery, Julie agrees to sell to Tom for $8M. Who gets the planes?a. Mary: mailbox ruleb. Tom : Julie counter offered at $7 million so the $8 million offer is off the table. Mary doesn’t have the power to accept the offer , it is no longer a valid offerc. Julie keeps them: can’t happen as there is a valid contractd. Mary gets 5 and Tom gets 5: courts don’t make up contracts (giving 5 to each), they enforce the contract*the result would be the same if the agreement was received and then Julie accepted Tom’s offer because Mary had no ability to accept the offer, it could be considered as Mary’s counter offer3. A marketing intern and her boss discuss the intern’s idea for a new novel. The boss is also an author. They verbally agree that if they co-author a book, they’ll split the proceeds based on each person’s contributions to the book. The internship ends. Two years later, the boss publishes his own novel that borrows from the intern’s manuscript. Is the intern likely to succeed in court?a. Yes, due to breach of contract: If there was a binding contract this could be true, but there is no agreement and the contribution is unclear (“based on each person’s contribution”)b. Yes, due to unjust enrichment: no promise- the promise would only be if they co-authored the book, but the boss wrote the book himself; the boss took advantage of the intern and profited at the expense of the intern; one person in a powerful position, one in a weak positionc. Yes, due to promissory estoppel: the intern did rely on the promise, and this was the only way to avoid injustice, but the promise was not cleard. No, the intern failed to bargain for a binding contract: there is no good contractual claim* B and C can both be considered/used when there is NO CONTRACT4. Sally is selling a popular restaurant near campus. There are many potential buyers. On Monday, Bob says, “On Friday, I’ll pay 10% more than your best offer.” Sally says, “okay, we’ve got a deal.” On Wednesday, Sally signs a deal with Ana to sell the restaurant for $1million, but Sally tells Ana not to publicly announce the deal until Saturday. On Friday, Bob arrives with $1.1 million. Sally demands $1.5 million, and Bob reluctantly signs a contract for $1.5 million. Everybody sues. In court, who likely gets the restaurant?a. Ana, for $1 million: There is an option contract between Sally and Bob that is not valid as there is no consideration to hold the contract open, so Ana would getthe contractb. Bob, for $1.1 million: the contract has to be in writing (and isn’t) , and because there is no consideration, there is not a valid option contractc. Bob, for $1.5 million: again, the contract isn’t in writing, and Ana’s contract came first; if the option contract had been valid he would only have to pay $1.1 milliond. Sally, because there was no valid sale: real estate has to be in writing, there was not an option contract between Bob and Sally so there was no consideration to keep the offer open5. Assume OSU has contracted with a builder to expand student exercise facilities on campus. The contract requires the builder to obtain extensive student input on the type of facility to construct, which the builder does. But the builder fails to perform on time. OSU refuses to sue (the builder’s family is a large OSU donor). The new targeted completion date is now just after your anticipated graduation date. Can you and other students sue to enforce the contract? a. No, you lack contractual privity: yes, no student signed the contract, but this would only be correct if 3rd party beneficiaries were not an optionb. No, you are an incidental 3rd party beneficiary: residents of Stillwater, or those not related to OSU are incidental 3rd party beneficiaries because they would be affected by the contract, not studentsc. Yes, you are an intended 3rd party beneficiary: the contract was designed to benefit students directly and involved studentsd. Yes, but only if OSU assigns the contract to students: OSU doesn’t have to assign the contract to the students, this is not relevant to 3rd party beneficiary law6. Jack and Jill meet to discuss the sale of Jill’s football tickets. There is a video recording of the meeting. Jack signs an unambiguous contract to buy the tickets for $2,500. The market value is approximately $500. The next day, Jack refuses to pay and Jill sues to enforce the contract. Will the court consider the video evidence?a. No, the market decides the amount of consideration: this is not relevant to the validity of the contractb. No, due to parol/extrinsic evidence rule: the