Thanks for your response. They offered me a free subsription for a week so I assumed it applied to everything. I will try to contact them today. I tried the number that you gave but it was incorrect.
Do you provide assistance with writing as well, or do you only help anwere homework questions?
Thanks. I do have a few more questions, if you dont mind.
Which of the following statements is the most likely result for problem 12 in Chapter 5, Section 2 of your casebook.
There was a contract since Young should have clarified the amount.
There was a contract since Plaintiff delivered the product as agreed.
There was no contract since Young did not get what was bargained for.
There was no contract since the apparent understanding was an “illusion.”
Based upon your reading of the George v. Davoli case, which statement best describes the holding of the NY Supreme Court, Appellate Division?
Oral evidence that supplements a written agreement that is not final and complete was admissible.
Oral evidence of the time of delivery of a good is always admissible to supplement a written agreement.
All oral, mutual agreements of the parties were admissible to supplement any written agreement.
Where a written agreement is final and complete, evidence of an oral agreement to supplement the written agreement was admissible.
Which of the following statements about the parol evidence rule is false?
Does not apply to subsequent agreements.
Does not apply to contemporaneous agreements.
By majority rule, contemporaneous oral terms should be deemed to be a part of the integration and therefore be admissible into evidence.
Bars the admissibility of extrinsic evidence of a contract term agreed to prior to a total integration regardless of whether the term is written or oral.
Which of the following is the strongest reason why a court would consider a writing to be the final embodiment of an agreement?
If the parties intended the writing to be a final embodiment of the agreement, there is at least a partial integration and the writing can only be contradicted if the parties have actually agreed to the inconsistent terms.
If a writing is not a final embodiment of the contract, the parol evidence rule applies.
To determine if a writing is a final embodiment, a court looks to the intent of the parties.
The completeness of the agreement has little bearing on whether the agreement is deemed final.
In the Gianni v. R. Russell & Co. case, referred to in Section 3.2 (a) of the hornbook, which of the following statements best reflects the court’s holding?
The evidence was excluded because of the parol evidence rule.
The evidence was excluded because it was oral.
The evidence was admissible because of the parol evidence rule.
The evidence was admissible because the agreement was actually made.
Which of the following states one of Williston’s Rules regarding the parol evidence rule?
Ascertaining the actual intent of the parties is critical.
The use of “course of dealing” or “usage of trade” will supply missing or disputed terms.
The presence of a merger clause creates a rebuttable presumption that an integration is total.
If an instrument appears to be complete on its face, the instrument is conclusively presumed to be a total integration
Based upon the Nanakuli Paving and Rock Co. v. Shell Oil Co. case, which of the following statements is true?
The court limited the interpretation of the contract terms to the “four corners” of the written agreement.
The case applied the common law in a way “to promote flexibility in the expansion of commercial practices.”
The parties’ course of performance was more important than trade usage to determine the terms of an agreement.
The court refused to consider the “entire commercial context of the agreement.”
Which of the following states the best definition of the parol evidence rule?
Agreements that are not in writing are invalid.
A final agreement supersedes tentative terms discussed in earlier negotiations.
Parol evidence is not admissible for contracts involving the purchase of land.
Proposed, oral terms of a contract cannot become part of the final agreement.
Which of the following statements is NOT true regarding course of dealing, course of performance and usage?
These topics are not applicable at common law.
A party engaged in a trade is bound by the usages of that trade even if that party has no knowledge of the trade usage in question.
At common law, a course of dealing is admissible whenever extrinsic evidence is admissible.
Under the UCC, trade usage and course of dealing are always admissible, but the evidence is not always controlling.
A writing that is final integrates the terms embodied in it.
A writing intended by the parties to be a final embodiment of their oral agreement should be protected from attack by evidence of contradictory prior or contemporaneous agreements.
Oral evidence of a term not in the written agreement is not admissible.
The parol evidence rule applies when the last expression is a written and binding contract.
Which of the following statements is true regarding questions of admissibility of parol evidence?
These are always questions of fact for the trier of fact to determine.
The meaning of language is generally considered a question of fact, but the interpretation of a writing is generally treated as a question of law for the court to decide.
Where parol evidence is introduced to aid interpretation of a writing, the question of meaning is always left to the jury.
In an oral agreement where the words of the parties are not in dispute, the court will apply rules that differ significantly from rules regarding a written contract.
Which of the following statements is NOT true regarding non-contractual writings?
Parol evidence is admissible to show that a writing that appears to be a contract was never formed.
A party may testify that what appears to be a total integration was a non-final agreement.
Parol evidence of fraud is admissible to avoid a written agreement unless there is a merger clause.
Even if the writing stated that consideration was paid and described the consideration, the majority rule is that such a “recital of consideration” may be contradicted by parol evidence.
Which of the following statements about integration is true?
A partial integration may be contradicted by parol evidence.
A total integration may be supplemented, but not contradicted by consistent (non-contradictory) additional terms.
A final and incomplete integration may not be supplemented by consistent additional terms.
A writing that is final and incomplete is called a partial integration.
Sorry about the delay, I was having computer trouble. I will check now.
I just tried to check and the page is private, can you please open it so that I can check. Thanks
Thank you very much. Can you I trouble you for help with a few more questions on tort
Which of the following statements is best describes joint and several liability?
Plaintiff can obtain a judgment against two defendants who are both 50% liable and collect the full amount of the judgment from each defendant.
Plaintiff can obtain a judgment against two defendants who are both 50% liable, but can only collect 50% of the judgment from each defendant.
Plaintiff can obtain a judgment against two defendants who are both 50% liable, and collect the full judgment against any one of the tortfeasors.
Plaintiff can obtain a judgment against two defendants who are both 50% liable, and if plaintiff collects 75% of the judgment from one tortfeasor, plaintiff and still collect 50% of the judgment from the other tortfeasor
Which of the following statements is true regarding the role of the jury in deciding unreasonableness?
Because reasonableness is a question of fact, the jury always decides this issue.
Because reasonableness is a question of fact, the jury always decides this issue, subject to the judge’s right to make the ultimate decision.
Because reasonableness is a question of law, the judge always decides this issue.
The “fixed standard of reasonableness” approach is now a firmly established legal principle.
Regarding deviation from custom, which of the following statements is true?
“Well established custom” is not an appropriate test to use.
custom is not a well-received principle to show breach of duty.
Custom does not relate to the consideration of the risk calculus.
The test is whether or not the practice is widespread enough that defendant knew or should have known of the custom
Based on your reading of the Pipher v. Parsell case, which statement does not represent any of the legal principles of breach of duty considered by the court?
If actions of a passenger that cause an accident are not foreseeable, negligence is still attributed to the driver.
Negligence is conduct that creates an unreasonable risk.
One main component of determining foreseeable risk was whether a reasonable person would foresee that harm might result from his actions.
Proof of negligent conduct may require examination of the defendant’s conduct and any alternate conduct the defendant should have engaged in to avoid the injury caused.
Based on your reading of the Santiago v. First Student, Inc. case, which of the following statements is true?
The court indicated that it disbelieved the plaintiff.
One cannot prove unreasonable risk without establishing specific facts of conduct.
The nature of an accident was almost always sufficient to show unreasonableness.
Justifiable speculation is generally sufficient to establish unreasonableness.
Which of the following statements regarding circumstantial evidence is not true?
Circumstantial evidence is often the most important evidence in tort cases.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence of one fact that permits an inference of another fact.
Few negligence cases involve the use of circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence can benefit both the plaintiff’s and defendant’s case
Which of the following is not an accurate definition of breach of duty.
An act, the nonoccurrence of which may cause damage to another.
The defendant’s failure to meet the standard of care.
The defendant’s failure to act as a reasonable person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
The unreasonable conduct by the defendant.
Based upon your reading of the United States v. Carroll Towing Co. case, which statement, below, regarding the “Risk Calculus” Theory was not true?
The formula expressed was that a breach of duty exists if "B is less than L multiplied by P."
The "L" in the formula referred to the injury suffered by the plaintiff.
The formula was intended to be inflexible.
Judge Hand determined that the burden of taking adequate precautions was less than the gravity of the resulting injury times the probability that the barge would break away.
Which of the following statements is not true regarding safety custom?
Evidence that defendant violated customary safety precautions of the relevant community is usually sufficient to get plaintiff’s case to the jury.
A defendant who complied with all safety requirements of a statute might still be negligent.
In many courts, plaintiff has been allowed to introduce into evidence safety manuals written by private organizations to show that defendant, in failing to follow such manuals, fell below the standard of reasonable care.
A defendant who fails to comply with a safety custom established by a statute or ordinance may introduce evidence that the statute or ordinance is customarily violated by others in the community as evidence of the defendant’s reasonable conduct