Question

1. Pauline's Print Mart (PPM) discussed with Martin Mason printing up elegant brochures advertising Mason's business, at a price of $700. Mason took possession of about 500 brochures; then, pressed by a big national competitor, he quit that business. He then refused to pay for the 1000 brochures still stored in boxes at PPM, denying he had ordered any more than the 500 he'd taken. As to the remaining 1000 brochures . . .

a) Mason will not win-none of the above is correct.

b) Mason will win: the brochures were printed by normal printing mechanisms, nothing special.

c) Mason will win because under Article 2 if a person accepts goods, he admits a contract for that much.

d) Mason will win: the parol evidence rule precludes admission of contemporaneous oral agreements that alter the terms of otherwise unambiguous written contracts.

e) Mason will win: the relevant statute of frauds requires contracts in excess of $500 to be evidenced by a writing.

2. Bernard bought a car from Car Sales, Inc., and received the title, registration information, owner's manual, and keys. But he told the saleswoman, "I am going out of town for three days. Can I leave the car here for now and pick it up Monday afternoon?" Saleswoman said, "Certainly." But Saturday night drunken vandals seriously damaged the car while it was still on the car lot. Bernard bears the loss.

True/ False

3. Daniel took his tuxedo to the dry cleaner but when he returned for it, it could not be found. Daniel, as the plaintiff, has the burden of proof to show the dry cleaner was negligent.

True/ False

Answer 1

1. e) Mason will win: the relevant statute of frauds requires contracts in excess of $500 to be evidenced by a writing.

In this case as there was no written contract, hence Mason will win because under the Statute of Frauds any contract exceeding $500 is value has to be documented in the form of a contract.

2. True

In this case the car has been transferred to Bernard and therefore it is his property and any loss to the property needs to be paid by him. The registration information is forwarded to Bernard and therefore Car Sales, Inc. does not possess any liability.

3. False

No in this case Daniel does not have to prove that the dry cleaner was negligent because this is the risk associated with the business process of dry cleaner and the loss proves that it is obvious that the dry cleaner is responsible for the loss.