Appendix C for Unit Three
Questions on the Features
N.B.: TYPE indicates that a question is new, modified, or unchanged, as follows.
N A question new to this edition of the Test Bank.
+ A question modified from the previous edition of the Test Bank.
= A question included in the previous edition of the Test Bank.
CHAPTER 10—INSIGHT INTO ETHICS:
IS IT RIGHT FOR A COMPANY TO CHANGE THE PRIZE OFFERED IN A
CONTEST?
A1. Sports Fit Company sponsors the “$100,000 Game” in which contestants compete in
ten separate athletic events over a period of weeks. Sports Fit announces that the
winner of each event will be awarded $5,000 with the “Ultimate Champion”—the
winner of the most events—awarded $50,000. If the “$100,000 Game” is treated as a
unilateral contract, Sports Fit can
a. cancel the contest or alter its terms at any time.
b. not modify the terms of the contest after it begins.
c. reduce the amount of the event prizes but not the grand prize.
d. reduce the amount of the grand prize but not the event prizes.
CHAPTER 14—INSIGHT INTO ETHICS:
HOW MUCH COMPANY INFORMATION MUST EMPLOYERS DISCLOSE TO
PROSPECTIVE EMPLOYERS?
A2. Girard accepts a job with Deep Vault Bank in reliance on assurances that Deep Vault
will not soon be sold. In fact, negotiations to sell the bank are under way at the time
that Girard is hired. Girard is most likely a victim of
a. fraud.
b. mistake.
c. nothing.
d. puffery.
CHAPTER 17—INSIGHT INTO ETHICS:
WHEN IS IMPOSSIBILITY OF PERFORMANCE A VALID DEFENSE?
A3. Bonnie contracts to deliver a crop of soybeans to Farmers Co-op. A tornado destroys
the crop on her farm. The buyer insists that she deliver by acquiring soybeans on the
open market. She claims that this is prohibitively expensive. Her best argument
against enforcing the contract is
a. frustration of purpose.
b. objective impossibility of performance.
c. anticipatory repudiation.
d. commercial impracticability.
UNIT THREE—FOCUS ON ETHICS:
CONTRACT LAW AND THE APPLICATION OF ETHICS
A4. Topographical Engineers, Inc., which is new to its business, offers its services at less
than half their possible market price to United Road Crew Construction, Inc., which
knows the services’ value. United’s decision to accept the offer without commenting
on the price could be justified by
a. the concept of unconscionability.
b. the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
c. the principle of freedom of contract.
d. the Statute of Frauds.
A5. Merchandise Presentation Company enters into a contract with Newt to perform
certain services for a certain price. Newt is later dissatisfied with what he claims is a
low level of service for a high price. Whether this deal is unconscionable is subject to
a. the interpretation of a court.
b. the opinion of the buyer.
c. the position of the seller.
d. the precise definition in UCC 2–302.