A) 1950
B) 1955
C) 1970
D) 1975
E) 2000
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Susan is wrong, and Mary is free to disclaim warranties.
B) Susan is partially correct, and Mary must provide a limited written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act.
C) Susan is correct, and Mary must provide a full written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act
D) Susan is partially correct, and Mary must provide a limited written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act only if her average gross sales are over $5,000.
E) Susan is partially correct, and Mary must provide a full written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act only if her average gross sales are over $5,000.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) That the nonbreaching seller may claim against a breaching buyer 20 percent of the purchase price or $500, whichever is less, as liquidated damages.
B) That the nonbreaching seller may claim against a breaching buyer 20 percent of the purchase price or $500, whichever is more, as liquidated damages.
C) That the nonbreaching seller may claim against a breaching buyer 30 percent of the purchase price or $1,000, whichever is less, as liquidated damages.
D) That the nonbreaching seller may claim against a breaching buyer 30 percent of the purchase price or $1,000, whichever is more, as liquidated damages.
E) Nothing
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Phil will likely win because Priscilla violated the implied warranty of merchantability.
B) Phil will likely win because Priscilla violated the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
C) Phil will likely win because Priscilla violated the warranty of title.
D) Priscilla will likely win because she had no knowledge of any previous patent.
E) Priscilla will likely win both because she had no knowledge of any previous patent and also because the duty was on Phil to investigate whether any patents existed prior to his purchase of the presses.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Both parties must be merchants and a sale must be involved.
B) Both parties must be merchants, and either a sale or lease may be involved.
C) The seller must be a merchant and a sale must be involved.
D) A seller or lessor must be a merchant, and either a sale or lease may be involved.
E) The seller must be a merchant, goods valued at over $500 must be involved, and either a sale or lease may be involved.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) That food products do not come with a warranty of merchantability.
B) That no express warranty was made.
C) That no implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose was made.
D) That the presence of the peach pit should not have been unexpected.
E) That the injury was minor.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) The contract is void.
B) The buyer may inspect the goods and decide whether to (1) treat the contract as void or (2) ask the seller for a reduction of the contract price and then accept the damaged goods.
C) The buyer has five days in order to determine whether to void the contract or proceed under it.
D) Unless the parties can agree on a price, the matter must be submitted to arbitration for a determination as to an appropriate price.
E) Unless the parties can agree on a price, the contract is voidable at the option of the seller who does not wish to remedy any problems.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) When they seem unfair.
B) When one party is a corporation.
C) When neither party is a corporation.
D) When one side was not represented by an attorney.
E) When the remedies fail in their essential purpose.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Commercial unreasonableness
B) Commercial impracticability
C) Substantial hardship
D) Unforeseen circumstances
E) Unreasonable bride
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) No warranties automatically arise under the common law.
B) Only the implied warranty of assignability automatically arises under common law.
C) Only implied warranties of merchantability automatically arise under common law.
D) Only warranties of title automatically arise under common law.
E) Express warranties, implied warranties of assignability, and warranties of title all automatically arise under common law.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) No, because the implied warranty of merchantability was that the car would, for example, be fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used. Pulling the boat was not an ordinary purpose for that small car.
B) Yes, because Donnie informed the salesperson about the need for the car to pull the boat.
C) Yes, because the salesperson told Donnie that the car would pull the boat.
D) No, because of the lack of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
E) No, because there was no warranty of merchantability.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Trade norm
B) Course of dealing
C) Anticipated trade dealing
D) Usage of trade
E) Course of performance
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Bob is incorrect because under the UCC Penny had 30 days in which to reject the goods.
B) Bob is incorrect only if Penny can establish that Let Us Help You miscalculated the amount of interest she owed.
C) Bob is incorrect only if Penny can show that the goods were overpriced.
D) Bob is correct only if Bob can show that the goods were priced at reasonable market value.
E) Bob is correct.
Correct Answer
verified
Multiple Choice
A) Bob is incorrect because under the UCC Penny had 30 days in which to reject the goods.
B) Bob is incorrect only if Penny can establish that Let Us Help You miscalculated the amount of interest she owed.
C) Bob is incorrect only if Penny can show that the goods were overpriced.
D) Bob is correct because Penny made no claim that the goods were nonconforming.
E) Bob is correct only if Bob can show that the goods were priced at reasonable market value.
Correct Answer
verified
True/False
Correct Answer
verified
Essay
Correct Answer
verified
View Answer
Showing 81 - 100 of 118
Related Exams