Answer 1

C- Digit is liable for nothing as there was no contract between Digit and Cavo. Contract
formation requires an offer, acceptance and consideration. While the bid by Digit was an
offer, there was no acceptance. Following the offer by Digit, there was only a potential
contract until Cavo either accepted the offer, rejected it, or terminated it. Here, the offer
was terminated by Cavo upon their counteroffer seeking the work at $900,000. This
counteroffer serves as both a rejection of the original offer and a new offer from the
original offeree. Following this new offer, Cavo is not in a position to accept or reject.
Digit clearly rejected this counteroffer; therefore, there is no contract that is enforceable.
A and B are incorrect. As there was no contract between Cavo and Digit, the existence of
a unilateral or obvious mistake is irrelevant.
D is wrong for numerous reasons: First, it relies on the actual existence of a contract, and
as stated above, there was no contract. Second, it assumes that Digit's offer could not be
revoked and this is clearly untrue. An offer may be revoked at any point prior to the
acceptance of the offer. When dealing with a subcontractor sub-bid situation, a sub- bid is
ordinarily deemed irrevocable for a reasonable amount of time under the theory of
detrimental reliance. Here, Cavo learned of Digit's mistake before any reliance; therefore,
the premise in Answer D is irrelevant.
Answer 2

A-For a contract to exist you need mutual assent and valid consideration. Mutual assent
requires that a valid offer exist and an unequivocal acceptance occur before the offer is
either rejected by the offeree or revoked by the offeror. Here, we clearly had an offer for
a sale of $1 million. Following the offer, we had an inquiry as to new terms (not a
counteroffer, which would have severed the original offer) and there was no rejection of
the original offer. In light of this, the original offer was still valid when Sally finally
accepted it on January 10th. Having mutual assent and valid consideration; a contract
exists. The terms in the acceptance directing the deed be made out to Sally's bank are not
additional language as these items are implicit in a land sale. We have an offer, a
consideration and an acceptance. Therefore, a valid contract was formed.
B is incorrect. As stated above, the January 7th communication was not a counteroffer
but rather an inquiry. Thereby, the original offer was valid and could be accepted.
C is wrong. Both the first and second communications by Sally served merely to inquire
as to different terms and to set forth answers implicit to land use questions. Neither of
these serve to set forth additional terms.
D is also wrong. A contract dealing with the sale of property only needs to identify the
land and contain a price term to be deemed definite.


Answer 3

A-Where there is a mistake in integration a court will allow the mistake to be addressed
and subsequently corrected.
B is incorrect as it is plausible that the payment term to Jean-Paul was inadvertently left
out, but the correction of the payment to Tsitsi (from $700 to $1,000) would be most
beneficial to Tsitsi only.
C is incorrect. If the writing was a sham there would be no rights associated with the
contract.
D is wrong. If either Tsitsi or Ousmane made a mistake as to the monthly amount due, it
would not necessarily result in potential relief in a court of law absent a showing of
additional facts.
Answer 4

B-Consideration is not required, here, as this is a contract for the sale of goods and is
governed by the U.C.C. Under the U.C.C. a good faith modification is enforceable even if
there is a lack of consideration. In light of the correct answer, Answer C is clearly wrong.
Answers A and D are illogical and are additionally wrong.
Answer 5
B-Trapper cannot accept Wiley's offer regardless of the fact that this is a unilateral
mistake. Since Trapper knew, or had reason to know, of the mistake: the contract is void.
Here, the significant gap between Wiley's sub-bid and the next lowest sub-bid would
have alerted Trapper that a mistake was present. In light of this, Wiley is free to refuse to
perform.
A
is incorrect under the concept of unconscionableness. In the presence of a clause that is
so one-sided as to be unconscionable, as in a contract where one party has all of the
bargaining power, enforcement of a contract will be voided. Here, however, there is no
indication of a disparity in bargaining power or an unconscionable contract.
C is incorrect. Wiley will, in fact, be held to the amount stated in the telegraph unless
Trapper should have known that this was an error on Wiley's part. In a situation such as
this, where the offer is transmitted by a third party, law states that the transmitted
message will be viewed as binding absent a showing that the other party knew, or should
have known, of the mistake.
D is also incorrect. Trapper's failure to investigate each sub - bid would not be enough to
rescind the contract containing a unilateral mistake. As set forth above, in the presence of
a unilateral mistake, only a showing that the other party knew, or should have known, of
the error is sufficient to rescind the contract.