SOLVED

16) What was the result in the Opening Case in which the plaintiff attempted to buy a jet from Pepsi for Pepsi points and some additional funds? A) The plaintiff did not prevail because the jet was unobtainable as a military aircraft. B) The plaintiff prevailed, and Pepsi had to sell the jet as offered because Pepsi failed to specifically reserve details of the offer to a separate writing. C) The plaintiff prevailed, and Pepsi had to sell the jet as offered because Pepsi’s advertisement was considered an offer which the plaintiff validly accepted. D) The plaintiff did not prevail because Pepsi reserved the details of the offer to a separate writing, and Pepsi had the authority to reject the plaintiff’s offer to purchase. E) The plaintiff prevailed, and Pepsi had to provide the jet as offered because Pepsi did not revoke the offer soon enough. 17) Which of the following is not a required element of a valid offer? A) Reasonably definite terms. B) Communication to the offeree. C) A written document setting forth offer terms. D) Intent by the offeror to be bound by an agreement. E) Serious intent by the offeror. 18) What standard do courts use to interpret a contract? A) An objective standard. B) A negligence standard. C) A common law reasonableness standard. D) A subjective standard. E) A subjective reasonableness standard. 19) Which of the following is true of intent to form a contract? A) Intent is determined based on the specific motivations of the offeror or offeree, including hidden motivations. B) An offeror must show intent to be bound by the offeree’s acceptance. C) Intent is a required element of an offer or acceptance only if a contract is a contract for the sale of goods. D) Intent Is not a required element of an offer or acceptance to form a contract. E) Intent is assessed by considering proof of an offeree or offeror’s internal thought process. 20) What was the result in the case in the text Lucy v. Zehmer involving whether allegations of joking prevented the formation of the contract involved? A) The court ruled that the contract would not be enforced because one of the parties was joking, and a reasonable person should have known that. B) The court ruled that the contract would be enforced because of what the parties verbally said regardless of whether an objective person would have thought joking was involved. C) The court ruled that the contract would not be enforced because the parties had been drinking although they were not intoxicated. D) The court ruled that the contract would not be enforced because one of the parties was subjectively joking. E) The court ruled that the agreement would be enforced because under the applicable standard, it was not apparent that joking was involved. Â Â