Midterm Exam Instructions: Submit Your Exam Via Your Assignm

Midterm Examinstructions1 Submit Your Exam Via Your Assignments Folde

Submit your exam via your Assignments Folder and to Turnitin. Your response should be a well-written, well-organized discussion of the relevant material covered in this course. It is crucial that you use information from the textbook and assigned readings. What I am looking for is insightful identification of the key issues and your analysis of those issues.

Here are some suggestions for writing a successful paper: Before you start, read and re-read the question to be sure you understand what you are answering. Organize your discussion with a logical structure and flow of ideas. Prioritize and address multiple aspects of the topic and acknowledge different points of view. Clearly explain the reasons behind your ideas and conclusions. Refer to course materials and examples to support your views, use references, and always with an explanation of their impact on your reasoning. Avoid re-hashing previous work. Proofread your work for grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors. This exam does not require you to do research beyond the course materials. You should use ALL of the currently posted lectures, readings, and the textbook.

For information on how the exam will be graded, carefully review the Midterm Exam Rubric.

Paper For Above instruction

Question 1: Jennifer vs. Phillies - Contract Formation and Enforceability

The case of Jennifer versus the Phillies highlights critical issues in contract law, especially regarding capacity, consideration, duress, and the Statute of Frauds. Jennifer, a 12-year-old minor, initially caught a home run ball during a Major League Baseball game. Phillies officials, acting out of concern for reputation, persuaded her to exchange the ball for autographed memorabilia. Later, her father demands the original baseball, threatening publicity. The complex legal questions involve whether Jennifer has a right to rescind the contract and whether the Phillies can enforce the exchange for tickets.

Firstly, Jennifer, as a minor, generally has the status of a voidable party in contract law, meaning she can disaffirm her agreement at her discretion, especially when the contract pertains to a non-necessity. Courts recognize that minors lack full contractual capacity (Section 1, Black's Law Dictionary, 11th Ed., 2019). Consequently, Jennifer has the right to void the contract and reclaim the original baseball, provided she returns any consideration she received, in this case, the autographed ball. If she no longer possesses the autographed item, she cannot be compelled to return it, aligning with the rule that consideration need not be of equivalent value (Corbin on Contracts, 1964).

Regarding the issue of duress or coercion, the Phillies' official threatened reputational harm, which, depending on jurisdiction, may amount to coercion if the threat was unlawful or unfairly exerted undue influence, thus rendering the agreement voidable. Furthermore, the oral agreement might raise concerns under the Statute of Frauds, which generally requires contracts for the sale of goods exceeding $500 to be in writing (UCC § 2-201). Since baseball memorabilia are considered goods, the exchange might fall within this scope. However, a voucher for tickets may not constitute "goods" but rather a license or right to attend games, potentially circumventing the writing requirement.

Most critically, the contractual validity hinges on whether the Phillies can enforce the exchange of the baseball for tickets. Given Jennifer's minor status, the contract is voidable at her option. The father’s attempted modification—acceptance of tickets instead of the baseball—may constitute a new agreement or an attempt to ratify the original, but since Jennifer is a minor, her right to disaffirm remains paramount. The Phillies cannot enforce the original agreement against Jennifer, but they might be able to enforce a different arrangement if validly ratified.

Question 2: Stock Sale and Contract Formation - Offer, Acceptance, and Revocation

The scenario involving Moe, Larry, and Curly exemplifies classical issues surrounding offers, revocation, and acceptance under contract law. Moe's initial offer to sell ten shares at $60 per share created a bilateral contract, contingent on acceptance within four days, which Larry attempted to accept via a counteroffer at $55 per share. The legal questions relate to Moe’s authority to revoke his offer before acceptance, the effect of Larry's counteroffer, and Moe’s subsequent sale of the shares to Curly.

Firstly, Moe possessed the right to revoke the offer before acceptance, as offers are generally revocable at any point prior to acceptance, unless supported by consideration as part of an option contract. An option contract, which would make the offer irrevocable for a specified period, requires consideration separate from the initial offer (Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 25). Since Moe did not receive such consideration, his offer remains revocable, and he effectively withdrew it upon selling the shares and mailing a revocation letter before Larry’s acceptance was effective.

Secondly, Larry’s letter of July 6, stating, "will purchase ten shares at $55.00 per share," acts as a counteroffer, which under common law operates as a rejection of the original offer. The rule is that a counteroffer terminates the original offer’s power of acceptance (Restatement (Second) § 39). Therefore, Moe was now free to revoke the initial offer, and Larry's attempt to accept at $60 was ineffective because the original offer no longer existed.

Thirdly, Moe's sale of the stock to Curly constitutes an inconsistent act. Since Moe sold the shares to Curly before Larry's acceptance or revocation could take effect, Moe physically transferred ownership, rendering the offer to Larry moot. According to the "indirect revocation" doctrine, Moe's sale and mailing of a revocation notice to Larry both serve as means of revoking the offer, which becomes effective upon receipt (Restatement (Second) § 41). Here, Moe’s revocation was effective at 2 p.m. July 8, when received by Larry, who had previously rejected the original offer via the counteroffer, meaning no enforceable contract exists between Moe and Larry for the shares.

Larry’s telegram of July 6, stating, "disregard letter ... will take offered stock for $60.00 per share," functions as an acceptance, which under the mailbox rule is effective when dispatched, i.e., at 5 p.m. July 6, before the revocation to Moe, received at 9 a.m. July 7. These communications demonstrate that a bilateral contract was formed at the time Larry’s acceptance was effective, prior to Moe’s revocation and sale to Curly.

In conclusion, despite Moe's attempt to revoke his offer, Larry’s acceptance was effective due to the mailbox rule, and a valid contract was formed before Moe’s revocation and sale to Curly. Moe's sale to Curly, made before Larry’s acceptance, effectively terminated the original offer, but because the acceptance was already effective, the contract with Larry is enforceable.

References

• Black, H. C. (2019). Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed.). Thomson Reuters.
• Corbin, A. (1964). Corbin on Contracts. West Publishing.
• Restatement (Second) of Contracts §§ 25, 39, 41 (1981).
• UCC § 2-201. (n.d.). Sale of Goods - Statute of Frauds.
• Clark, E. M. (2017). Contract Law. Aspen Publishing.
• Knapp, E. J., Crystal, N. M., & Prince, H. G. (2019). Problems in Contract Law. Wolters Kluwer.
• Sullivan, J. V. (2020). Contract Law: Principles and Practices. LexisNexis.
• Folsom, R. D. (2014). Contract Doctrine. West Academic Publishing.
• McKendrick, E. (2019). Contract Law. Palgrave.
• Hogg, P. (2018). Essentials of Contract Law. Routledge.