Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Chapter 09 - Introduction to Contracts
V. ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS AND PROBLEM CASES
1. Yes. The court applied the predominant factor test to determine whether the primary
purpose of the contract was for goods or services. It stated that if the contract was
primarily for goods, the UCC would apply, but if the contract was primarily for services,
2. No. The lottery ticket was held to be a valid contract embodying legal rules and
3. No. The elements of promissory estoppel were satisfied. The jury had a basis for finding
that Home Depot made a clear promise on which Holt reasonably relied. The open-door
4. No. Although software has been found to be a good in several previous cases, the court
declined to apply the U.C.C. to this case. It stated, “[a] website created under
arrangements calling for the designer to fashion, program, and host its operations on the
5. Yes. This case fits squarely into the frame of promissory estoppel. TWA repeatedly
promised to place Chow on a priority list with Singapore, and in doing so must have
6. Yes. Promissory estoppel involves situations in which the promisor should reasonably
expect that his promise will induce action or forbearance on the part of the promisee, the
promise does induce such action, and injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the
9-1
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
Chapter 09 - Introduction to Contracts
7. The Supreme Court of Georgia ruled that the UCC did not apply. The issue on
appeal was whether the UCC applied to the settlement agreement. The court
characterized the transaction as a “mixed contract” of sale and non-sale aspects, similar to
8. No. The court concluded that Palese had entered into a contract with the Lottery Office
when he purchased the ticket, and that the ticket plainly stated that it was subject to state
9. No. Under section 2-105 of the UCC "goods “must be (1) a thing, (2) existing, and (3)
10. Yes. Schumacher showed that he made substantial improvements on his parents’
land, that his parents knew of the improvements and either encouraged them or
did nothing to discourage them, and that they benefited by the improvements. The
9-2
© 2016 by McGraw-Hill Education. This is proprietary material solely for authorized instructor use. Not authorized for sale or distribution in any
manner. This document may not be copied, scanned, duplicated, forwarded, distributed, or posted on a website, in whole or part.
