耶鲁大学-美国合同法笔记(美国经典案例)-第三周
说明：文章内容仅供预览，部分内容可能不全。下载后的文档，内容与下面显示的完全一致。下载之前请确认下面内容是否您想要的，是否完整无缺。
Consideration and its Substitutes the Consideration Doctrine II 总分：{TOTALPOINTS} 1.第 1 个问题 In McMichael v. Price (the “Sand Requirements” case) did Price (the sand purchaser) have any obligation to McMichael (the sand buyer)? If so, what was Price’s obligation? A. Yes, to purchase sand exclusively from McMichael at the agreed upon price. B. Yes, to purchase as much sand as McMichael could produce. C. No, because Price could avoid any obligation to McMichael by going out of business. 1 分 2.第 2 个问题 UCC § 2-306(2) states that “[a] lawful agreement by either the seller or the buyer for exclusive dealing in the kind of goods concerned imposes unless otherwise agreed an obligation by the seller to use best efforts to supply the goods and by the buyer to use best efforts to promote their sale.” Is this a default or mandatory rule? A. Default B. Mandatory 1 分 3.第 3 个问题 In Bailey v. West (the “Bascom’s Folly” case), the Rhode Island Supreme Court reviewed the factual question of “whether or not plaintiff was acting as a ‘volunteer’ at the time he accepted the horse for boarding at his farm.” What standard of review did the court apply? A. De novo B. Clear error 1 分 4.第 4 个问题 You are the director of a charity and you are suing someone who promised to donate to your charity under a theory of promissory estoppel. Which of these facts would be most helpful to your case? A. You have already included their donation in your spreadsheets for planning next year. B. You have taken out loans based on the expectation that their donation could be used to repay the loans. C. You knew that this donor had failed to make promised donations in the past. D. The donor was told that the donation was just a “drop in the bucket” and would not have a big impact on your organization’s finances. 1 分 5.第 5 个问题 1. Did the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court find that “moral obligation” was sufficient consideration to legally bind Wyman’s promise to reimburse Mill’s the cost of caring for his son in Mills v. Wyman? A. Yes. B. No. 1 分 6.第 6 个问题 Under the holding in Webb v. McGowin (the “Rescuer’s Recompense” case), which change in facts would be most likely to cause Mills v. Wyman (the “Moral Obligation” case) to come out differently? A. Wyman already owed Mills money. B. Wyman did not repudiate his promise, but died before fulfilling it, and his executor refused to pay Mills. C. Wyman’s promise was made in writing. D. Mills cared for Wyman, instead of Wyman’s son. 1 分 7.第 7 个问题 Generous Gifter walks up to a stranger and gives the stranger a car as a present. The stranger, overwhelmed with gratitude, later finds Generous Gifter and promises to pay Gifter the value of the car. Is the stranger’s promise enforceable under § 86(1) of the Second Restatement? 本文来源：https://www.wddqw.com/doc/afb1b9d8c57da26925c52cc58bd63186bceb928f.html