Able borrowed $10,000 from Baker, promising to return it with $1,000 interest on
January 1, 2006. There is no dispute that Able owes Baker $11,000 due on January 1,
2006. On that day, Able gave Baker a valid check in the amount of $10,500 marked
“payment in full for loan due January 1, 2006.” Baker accepted that check and
deposited it into his account. If Baker then sues Able for the unpaid $500, what would
the result be?
A. Able wins, because Baker accepted the lesser payment.
B. Able wins, because Baker made an implied promise to accept $10,500 as full
payment, thereby forgiving $500 of the loan.
C. Baker wins, because Able gave no consideration in exchange for Baker’s promise to
forgive $500 of the loan.
D. Baker wins, because marking “payment in full” can never relieve a party of its
original obligations under a contract.
On May 1, 1985, Mint, a 16-year-old, purchased a sailboat from Sly Boats. Mint used
the boat for six months, at which time he advertised it for sale. Which of the following
statements is correct?
A. The sale of the boat to Mint was void, thereby requiring Mint to return the boat and
Sly to return the money received.
B. Sly Boats has the power to recover the boat from Mint because he has advertised it
for sale.
C. Mint’s use of the boat for six months after the sale on May 1 constituted a ratification
of that contract.
D. Mint may disaffirm the May 1 contract at any time prior to reaching majority.
In case a check is altered so skillfully that a bank is unable to detect the alteration,
which of the following stands true?
A. The bank should honor only those checks for which it receives a notice from the
drawer.
B. The bank is allowed to charge to the account the amount for which the check
originally was written.
C. The bank will be liable to recredit the drawer’s account for negligence.
D. The bank will hold the drawer responsible for contributing to the alteration of the
check.