TAFT LAW SCHOOL
PRACTICE EXAMINATION ISSUE ANALYSIS
CONTRACTS
ESSAY QUESTION 1 OF 1
1. Thomas v. Bobby
Offer
An offer is an outward manifestation of present contractual intent to be bound by a contractual
agreement with definite and certain terms communicated to the offeree.
When Bobby saw Thomas’ work at the Festival of Arts and offered to pay Thomas $4,500 for a
painting, it showed Bobby’s present contractual intent to be bound by a contractual agreement.
The purchase was for one painting, representing quantity, no time was stated, but the court will
impose a reasonable time, Thomas and Bobby as the parties, $4,500 was the price and the
painting was the subject matter. Since the terms are stated with sufficient particularity, the terms
are definite and certain.
When Thomas accepted Bobby’s offer, it showed that it was communicated to Thomas, the
offeree.
Therefore, a valid offer exists.
Acceptance
Acceptance is as unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer.
During Bobby’s conversation with Thomas, Thomas accepted Bobby’s offer. Thus, there was an
unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer.
Therefore, a valid acceptance exists.
Consideration
Consideration is that which is bargained for and given in exchange for a return promise requiring
a benefit and a legal detriment to all parties.
Bobby bargained for Thomas’ painting for a return promise to pay Thomas $4500 which he was
not previously obligated to do. This was a legal detriment incurred in exchange for the benefit of
receiving the painting.
Thomas obligated himself to give Bobby the painting, which he was not previously obligated to
do. This was a detriment incurred in exchange for the benefit of receiving payment of $4,500.
Therefore, valid consideration exists.
1 of 3
TAFT LAW SCHOOL
PRACTICE EXAMINATION ISSUE ANALYSIS
CONTRACTS
ESSAY QUESTION 1 OF 1
Defenses
Statute of Frauds: Contacts for the Sale of Goods
Pursuant to the Statute of Frauds, a contract for the sale of goods for $500 or more is
unenforceable unless in writing.
The contract between Bobby and Thomas involved the sale of a painting for $4500. Since the
contract involved a sale of goods that cost over $500 and was oral, it would be unenforceable
pursuant to the Statute of Frauds.
The contract is unenforceable absent an exception.
Exception: Estoppel
Where a party detrimentally relies to the extent that a denial of enforcement of the contract
would result in an unconscionable loss or injury, an exception to the Statute of Frauds exists.
By Thomas withdrawing the painting from being sold to anyone else, it showed he detrimentally
relied on the offer made by Bobby. By Thomas attempting to deliver the painting to Bobby on
Friday, he can argue that his conduct was further proof of his detrimental reliance on Bobby’s
offer. Furthermore, Thomas would suffer a loss of $4,500 if the contract was not enforced.
Bobby will counter that Thomas called Darla and left her a message that he was accepting her
offer and would sell her the painting for the $2,500. Since Thomas had never sold a painting
before and since an expert had determined, based on Thomas’s skill and talent, that the painting
was worth between $1,500 and $3,500, Thomas would not suffer any unconscionable loss in
accepting the $2,500 which is within the price range suggested by the expert.
Since Thomas’ actions do not show reliance on the offer by Bobby, the court will likely find that
the estoppel exception does not apply.
Therefore, the court will not enforce the contract between Bobby and Thomas.
2. Thomas v. Darla
Offer
Defined supra.
When Darla told Thomas that she will buy his painting for $2,500 this established an outward
manifestation of present contractual intent to be bound by a contractual agreement.
Since the purchase was for one painting as quantity, no time was stated, but the courts will look
to a reasonable period of time; $2,500 was the price, Thomas and Darla as the parties and the
painting as the subject matter, the terms are definite and certain.
2 of 3
TAFT LAW SCHOOL
PRACTICE EXAMINATION ISSUE ANALYSIS
CONTRACTS
ESSAY QUESTION 1 OF 1
When Darla, the offeror, said she would buy Thomas’ painting, her offer was communicated to
Thomas, the offeree.
Therefore, a valid offer exists.
Termination of Offer
An offer can be terminated by lapse of time.
Thomas telephoned Darla on October 1 and left her a message that he accepted her offer that she
made on September 1 to purchase his painting. Darla can argue that since it had been one month
since she made her offer, it has lapsed and the offer is now terminated.
Although Thomas could argue that no time period was specified, it appears that Thomas’ delay
in accepting did indeed terminate the offer by lapse of time.
Therefore, the offer was terminated.
Acceptance
Defined supra.
On October 1, Thomas telephoned Darla and left a message that he accepted her offer.
Therefore, there was an unequivocal assent to the terms of the offer.
However, Darla will counter that since Thomas waited one month to contact her about the sale of
his painting the offer was terminated based on the lapse of time.
Therefore, Thomas’ acceptance of the terms is not valid.
Student # Date: Grade: Advisory
Grader #
Copyright, 2006 Taft Law School.
This exam answer may not be reproduced for any reason or purpose without the written consent
of the copyright holder.
3 of 3
