8/21/26, 4:19 PM Quiz: Cumulative Examination of Contract Law Topics: JURI530: Contracts Law (D01)
✓
Quiz: Cumulative Examination of Contract Law
Topics
Due Aug 21 at 1 1 :59pm
Points 200
Questions 40
Time Limit 1 20 Minutes
Instructions
The quiz:
Covers the Learn material from Module 1 : Week 1 — Module 8: Week 8.
Contains 40 multiple-choice and essay questions.
Is limited to 2 hours.
Allows 1 attempt.
Is worth 200 points.
You may refer to your notes and textbooks at any time during the assessment.
Submit this assignment by 1 1 :59 p.m. (ET) on Friday of Module 8: Week 8.
Attempt History
Attempt Time Score
LATEST Attempt 1 26 minutes 1 80 out of 200 *
* Some questions not yet graded
Correct answers are hidden.
Score for this quiz: 1 80 out of 200 *
* Some questions not yet graded
Submitted Aug 21 at 4:1 9pm This
attempt took 26 minutes.
Question 1
pts
A “requirements contract” under the UCC:
has for consideration the buyer having to purchase all of his requirements of a product from the seller in exchange for the
seller’s promise to supply the buyer’s needs.
is not allowed because the promise to supply all of a buyer’s requirements is illusory
, 8/21/26, 4:19 PM Quiz: Cumulative Examination of Contract Law Topics: JURI530: Contracts Law (D01)
is the same thing as an “outp ut con tract”
is illegal as it is against the p ublic i nterest
Question 2
pts
Decco Inc. and Graski LLC have been doing business together for several years. Decco provides
accounting services for Graski’s construction business. Last winter, when Decco had some storm damage
at its offices, Graski sent some workers over to repair the damage at no cost to Decco. The following
summer, Graski found itself being audited by the IRS. Decco agreed to advise Graski during the audit at
no cost, as a way of thanking Graski for its help the previous winter. Is the agreement between Decco
and Graski supported by consideration?
Yes, because Decco’s promise to provide assistance in the audit was exchanged for Graski’s performance in repairing the
damage.
No, because Decco’s promise to assist in the audit was not made to induce a return promise or performance from Graski.
Yes, because Decco relied on Graski’s performance in deciding to promise to assist in the audit.
No, because Decco was unjustly enriched by Graski’s work the previous winter.
Question 3
pts
True or false: The Plain Meaning Rule states that a writing that is not completely integrated and that
contains ambiguities will be enforced according to its plain meaning, without resort to extrinsic
evidence.
True
False
Question 4
pts
ACO Inc. contracts to repair BCO Inc.’s custom storefront sign on the front of BCO’s retail locations.
The total cost of repairing the sign is $431 .66. Is the transaction covered by the Uniform Commercial
Code?
Yes, because the contract is for the provision of services and the UCC applies to services.
Yes, because the contract is predominantly for the provision of goods.
No, because the CISG would apply to this transaction.
No, because the contract is for the provision of services and the UCC applies to the sale of goods.
✓
Quiz: Cumulative Examination of Contract Law
Topics
Due Aug 21 at 1 1 :59pm
Points 200
Questions 40
Time Limit 1 20 Minutes
Instructions
The quiz:
Covers the Learn material from Module 1 : Week 1 — Module 8: Week 8.
Contains 40 multiple-choice and essay questions.
Is limited to 2 hours.
Allows 1 attempt.
Is worth 200 points.
You may refer to your notes and textbooks at any time during the assessment.
Submit this assignment by 1 1 :59 p.m. (ET) on Friday of Module 8: Week 8.
Attempt History
Attempt Time Score
LATEST Attempt 1 26 minutes 1 80 out of 200 *
* Some questions not yet graded
Correct answers are hidden.
Score for this quiz: 1 80 out of 200 *
* Some questions not yet graded
Submitted Aug 21 at 4:1 9pm This
attempt took 26 minutes.
Question 1
pts
A “requirements contract” under the UCC:
has for consideration the buyer having to purchase all of his requirements of a product from the seller in exchange for the
seller’s promise to supply the buyer’s needs.
is not allowed because the promise to supply all of a buyer’s requirements is illusory
, 8/21/26, 4:19 PM Quiz: Cumulative Examination of Contract Law Topics: JURI530: Contracts Law (D01)
is the same thing as an “outp ut con tract”
is illegal as it is against the p ublic i nterest
Question 2
pts
Decco Inc. and Graski LLC have been doing business together for several years. Decco provides
accounting services for Graski’s construction business. Last winter, when Decco had some storm damage
at its offices, Graski sent some workers over to repair the damage at no cost to Decco. The following
summer, Graski found itself being audited by the IRS. Decco agreed to advise Graski during the audit at
no cost, as a way of thanking Graski for its help the previous winter. Is the agreement between Decco
and Graski supported by consideration?
Yes, because Decco’s promise to provide assistance in the audit was exchanged for Graski’s performance in repairing the
damage.
No, because Decco’s promise to assist in the audit was not made to induce a return promise or performance from Graski.
Yes, because Decco relied on Graski’s performance in deciding to promise to assist in the audit.
No, because Decco was unjustly enriched by Graski’s work the previous winter.
Question 3
pts
True or false: The Plain Meaning Rule states that a writing that is not completely integrated and that
contains ambiguities will be enforced according to its plain meaning, without resort to extrinsic
evidence.
True
False
Question 4
pts
ACO Inc. contracts to repair BCO Inc.’s custom storefront sign on the front of BCO’s retail locations.
The total cost of repairing the sign is $431 .66. Is the transaction covered by the Uniform Commercial
Code?
Yes, because the contract is for the provision of services and the UCC applies to services.
Yes, because the contract is predominantly for the provision of goods.
No, because the CISG would apply to this transaction.
No, because the contract is for the provision of services and the UCC applies to the sale of goods.
