In order to recover under quasi-contract, there is no requirement that enrichment be unjust?

[ern]

1. In order to recover under quasi-contract, there is no requirement that enrichment be unjust
true or fales.

2. Which of the following is false under the law in England?
England has requirements for consideration.
England does not recognize the exception of promissory estoppel.
In England, deeds are used to create enforceable promises of gifts to charity.
In England, a deed is a document that creates a binding obligation between parties without consideration when certain formalities are honored.
In England, specialty contracts or deeds are an additional exception to the requirement for consideration.

3. When an accord and satisfaction is at issue, the ______ is the new agreement to pay less than the creditor claims is owed.
Accord
Written acknowledgement
Satisfaction
Written compromise
Both satisfaction and accord


4. In China, which of the following is true regarding the treatment of fraudulent misrepresentations by outsiders?
Outsiders have been fined but by law are allowed to continue operation in the country because of the country’s concern with joint ventures.
Outsiders are jailed for at least 20 years by law.
Outsiders are jailed for at least 10 years, fined heavily, and have all property confiscated.
Outsiders have been fined heavily and refused permission to enter into more agreements with Chinese firms.
Outsiders have been prohibited from doing further business with Chinese firms but not fined because of the country’s concern with joint ventures.



5. Which of the following occurs in Australia whenever an illegitimate threat is made to hold on to goods unless a payment is made or an agreement is entered into?
Duress of goods
Unconscionable duress
Duress of trade
Unreasonable duress
Duress of merchandise

6. Which of the following is a type of contract that falls within the scope of the statute of frauds?
Contracts related to any lease
Promises made in consideration of marriage
All of the above
Contracts related to an interest in land
Contracts related to an interest in land and promises made in consideration of marriage, but not contracts related to any lease

7. Which of the following is an exception to the general rule that rights to a contract cannot be assigned when a contract is personal in nature?
There is no exception because rights to a contract that is personal in nature may generally be assigned.
When no more than three-fourths of the contractual duties have been performed.
When the only part of a contract left to be fulfilled is the payment.
When nothing has been done on the contract at all.
When no more than half the contractual duties have been performed.

8,Which of the following states that in the case of multiple assignments of the same right, the first party granted the assignment is the party correctly entitled to the contractual right?
The French rule
The American rule
The English rule
The first-assignment-in-time rule
The last-assignment-in-time rule

9.Why did equitable remedies come into being?
To fashion remedies when the existing laws did not provide any adequate ones.
To provide a way to award consequential damages.
To provide a way to award nominal damages.
To provide a way to award certain parties liquidated damages.
To supplement compensatory damages with punitive damages.

10.Which of the following doctrine arose from the cases in England in which parties who had contracted for rooms along a parade route for the king’s coronation, received their money back when the coronation was canceled because the king became ill?
Alteration of the contract
Frustration of purpose
Commercial impracticability
Anticipatory renunciation
Anticipatory repudiation

11. By which of the following may a party’s contractual obligations be terminated?
All the above
Performance
Operation of law
Performance and the failure of a condition to occur, but not operation of law
The failure of a condition to occur

12. Which of the following was the result on appeal in the case in the text, Cynthia Walker v. John A. Lahoski et al., involving whether the plaintiff was an employee entitled to workers’ compensation benefits from the defendants?
That the plaintiff was an employee because she worked at one location.
That the plaintiff was an employee because she was not a professional employee.
That a question existed as to whether the plaintiff was an employee and that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants.
That the plaintiff was an employee because she worked set hours.
That the plaintiff was an independent contractor because she signed an agreement to the effect that she was an independent contractor.

[advent]

home-works a bitc*.........ain't it?


do you have a question?

[bedyw25]

Try doing your own homework - you'll remember far more that way.