ALABAMA BAR LATEST UPDATED
ACTUAL FINAL EXAMINATION
WITH COMPLETE DETAILED 100
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT
VERIFIED ANSWERS WITH
RATIONALES PLUS ANSWER KEY
GRADED A+ GOOD LUCK!!!
Doctrine of Substantial Performance - answer-The doctrine of substantial performance
provides that a party who substantially performs can recover on the contract even
though full performance has not been tendered. However, there is no substantial
performance if the incomplete performance was a material breach of contract. Under
the common law, a material breach of contract (i.e., when the nonbreaching party fails
to receive the substantial benefit of its bargain) allows the nonbreaching party to
withhold any promised performance and to pursue remedies for the breach, including
damages.
Restitutionary Relief - Quasi-Contract - answer-When a plaintiff confers a measurable
benefit on a defendant and the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of compensation,
it would be unfair to permit the defendant to receive the benefit without compensating
the plaintiff.
Affirmative Steps to Avoid Loss - answer-Sometimes the reduction in consequential
damages because the aggrieved party did not take affirmative steps to avoid contractual
losses is described as a breach of the party's "duty to mitigate damages." This
terminology is misleading because that party has no duty to avoid loss; rather, contract
law simply provides that the aggrieved party cannot recover losses that could
reasonably have been avoided.
Compensatory Damages - answer-Compensatory damages are meant to compensate
the non-breaching party for actual economic losses.
When does the mailbox rule not apply? - answer-The mailbox rule states that a timely
sent acceptance is effective when sent, not upon receipt. However, if a communication
is sent rejecting the offer, and a later communication is sent accepting the contract, the
mailbox rule does not apply, and the first one to be received by the offeror prevails.
, Timine of Receipt of Rejection/Acceptance - answer-If the offeree sends an acceptance
and later sends a communication rejecting the offer, then the acceptance will generally
control even if the offeror receives the rejection first. If, however, the offeror receives the
rejection first and detrimentally relies on the rejection, then the offeree will be estopped
from enforcing the contract.
Mistake to an Essential Element of the Contract - answer-When only one of the parties
was mistaken as to an essential element of the contract at the time the contract was
formed, either party can generally enforce the contract on its terms. However, the
mistaken party can void the contract if (i) there was a mistake of fact existing at the time
the contract was formed, (ii) the mistake relates to a basic assumption of the contract,
(iii) the mistake has a material impact on the transaction, and (iv) the adversely affected
party did not assume the risk of the mistake and either (i) the mistake would make
enforcement of the contract unconscionable or (ii) the non-mistaken party caused the
mistake, had a duty to disclose or failed to disclose the mistake, or knew or should have
known that the other party was mistaken.
Third-Party Beneficiary Contract - answer-A third-party beneficiary contract results when
the parties to a contract intend that the performance by one of the parties is to benefit a
third person who is not a party to the contract. If the promisee tells the intended
beneficiary about the contract and should reasonably foresee reliance, and the
beneficiary does so rely to his detriment, then the intended beneficiary may sue the
promisee for his breach of the contract.
Surety Contracts that aren't SOF - answer-Generally, a promise made to a person (i.e.,
the obligee) that the promisor (i.e., a surety) will be responsible for any debt or other
obligation of a third party (i.e., the principal) resulting from the principal's failure to pay
as agreed is subject to the Statute of Frauds, and the surety's promise must be in
writing. However, if the main purpose of a surety in agreeing to pay the debt of the
principal is the surety's own economic advantage, rather than the principal's benefit,
then the contract does not fall within the Statute of Frauds, and an oral promise by the
surety is enforceable.
Full Performance Removes from the SOF - answer-Contracts that cannot be performed
within one year because of the constraints of the terms of the agreement must be in
writing. The year starts the day after the contract is made. Here, the teacher and the
principal entered into their agreement on April 1 of Year 1. Because the agreement
called for the teacher to teach through the month of May in Year 2, the contract could
not be performed within one year and therefore was subject to the Statute of Frauds.
However, full performance by either party to the contract will generally take the contract
out of the Statute of Frauds.
Good Faith Purchaser for Value - answer-A person who purchases goods from the true
owner can transfer good title to a good faith purchaser, even if the true owner could void
the sale to the original purchaser because it was fraudulent. However, the collector was
ACTUAL FINAL EXAMINATION
WITH COMPLETE DETAILED 100
QUESTIONS AND CORRECT
VERIFIED ANSWERS WITH
RATIONALES PLUS ANSWER KEY
GRADED A+ GOOD LUCK!!!
Doctrine of Substantial Performance - answer-The doctrine of substantial performance
provides that a party who substantially performs can recover on the contract even
though full performance has not been tendered. However, there is no substantial
performance if the incomplete performance was a material breach of contract. Under
the common law, a material breach of contract (i.e., when the nonbreaching party fails
to receive the substantial benefit of its bargain) allows the nonbreaching party to
withhold any promised performance and to pursue remedies for the breach, including
damages.
Restitutionary Relief - Quasi-Contract - answer-When a plaintiff confers a measurable
benefit on a defendant and the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of compensation,
it would be unfair to permit the defendant to receive the benefit without compensating
the plaintiff.
Affirmative Steps to Avoid Loss - answer-Sometimes the reduction in consequential
damages because the aggrieved party did not take affirmative steps to avoid contractual
losses is described as a breach of the party's "duty to mitigate damages." This
terminology is misleading because that party has no duty to avoid loss; rather, contract
law simply provides that the aggrieved party cannot recover losses that could
reasonably have been avoided.
Compensatory Damages - answer-Compensatory damages are meant to compensate
the non-breaching party for actual economic losses.
When does the mailbox rule not apply? - answer-The mailbox rule states that a timely
sent acceptance is effective when sent, not upon receipt. However, if a communication
is sent rejecting the offer, and a later communication is sent accepting the contract, the
mailbox rule does not apply, and the first one to be received by the offeror prevails.
, Timine of Receipt of Rejection/Acceptance - answer-If the offeree sends an acceptance
and later sends a communication rejecting the offer, then the acceptance will generally
control even if the offeror receives the rejection first. If, however, the offeror receives the
rejection first and detrimentally relies on the rejection, then the offeree will be estopped
from enforcing the contract.
Mistake to an Essential Element of the Contract - answer-When only one of the parties
was mistaken as to an essential element of the contract at the time the contract was
formed, either party can generally enforce the contract on its terms. However, the
mistaken party can void the contract if (i) there was a mistake of fact existing at the time
the contract was formed, (ii) the mistake relates to a basic assumption of the contract,
(iii) the mistake has a material impact on the transaction, and (iv) the adversely affected
party did not assume the risk of the mistake and either (i) the mistake would make
enforcement of the contract unconscionable or (ii) the non-mistaken party caused the
mistake, had a duty to disclose or failed to disclose the mistake, or knew or should have
known that the other party was mistaken.
Third-Party Beneficiary Contract - answer-A third-party beneficiary contract results when
the parties to a contract intend that the performance by one of the parties is to benefit a
third person who is not a party to the contract. If the promisee tells the intended
beneficiary about the contract and should reasonably foresee reliance, and the
beneficiary does so rely to his detriment, then the intended beneficiary may sue the
promisee for his breach of the contract.
Surety Contracts that aren't SOF - answer-Generally, a promise made to a person (i.e.,
the obligee) that the promisor (i.e., a surety) will be responsible for any debt or other
obligation of a third party (i.e., the principal) resulting from the principal's failure to pay
as agreed is subject to the Statute of Frauds, and the surety's promise must be in
writing. However, if the main purpose of a surety in agreeing to pay the debt of the
principal is the surety's own economic advantage, rather than the principal's benefit,
then the contract does not fall within the Statute of Frauds, and an oral promise by the
surety is enforceable.
Full Performance Removes from the SOF - answer-Contracts that cannot be performed
within one year because of the constraints of the terms of the agreement must be in
writing. The year starts the day after the contract is made. Here, the teacher and the
principal entered into their agreement on April 1 of Year 1. Because the agreement
called for the teacher to teach through the month of May in Year 2, the contract could
not be performed within one year and therefore was subject to the Statute of Frauds.
However, full performance by either party to the contract will generally take the contract
out of the Statute of Frauds.
Good Faith Purchaser for Value - answer-A person who purchases goods from the true
owner can transfer good title to a good faith purchaser, even if the true owner could void
the sale to the original purchaser because it was fraudulent. However, the collector was
