Tricky, Trick: Contracts-PMBR Red Book 101-150

Ok, PMBR is officially demoralizing. I just did my fourth set of contracts questions (counting the 50 we did in the PMBR class), and, after studying contracts for two days straight and diligently reading and studying all the answers for 150 of these stupid multiple choice questions, I just received the same score on the last fifty that I got on the first fifty (the one I took cold, with no studying at all). Ugh. I have a feeling this summer is going to make me feel like crap.

Now, whining complete. On with the investigation as to why my scores declined after all this studying:

Q103. Failure to pay rent is a partial, non-material breach. Interference with performance from the other party is a material breach, so answer A is better.

Q104. Because Overalls was required to refrain from interfering with the sale, his only hope of recovering is to show that he did not interfere, i.e. that his negative comments had no effect.

Q112. Remedy for repudiation of contract for specially manufactured goods before completion: costs reasonably incurred plus incidental damages (or lost profits).

Q115. Courts can fill in a "reasonable price" at time of delivery in a UCC contract, even if the price term was never there in the first place. This provision does not only apply when a price term fails. It applies if price was never stated.

Q117. Bad question (or at least bad PMBR answer). The answer choice given says that performance by both parties is excused due to supervening illegality. But the export of aluminum sheeting is not illegal under the facts. The problem is that White Owl doesn't want the sheeting because it won't be able to export its cigars the U.S. The value of the aluminum to White Owl is thus so diminished as to frustrate the purpose of the contract. If there's excuse here, it's in answer B -- frustration of purpose. It's weird and more than a little annoying that PMBR is really touchy about certain distinctions and then in other questions, the answer analysis skips the nuance entirely.

Q118. Answer choice D is a straight up correct statement of law. Answer choice C is also a correct statement of law, but one which is less directly relevant to the fact pattern? That's the only explanation I can figure for why D is better than C.

Q119. A liquidated claim = one where the amount is not in dispute. An unliquidated claim = one where the amount is in dispute. Payment of a partial unliquidated claim "in full satisfaction" and subsequent cashing of the payment = accord and satisfaction.

Q120. I have no idea what this answer explanation means. None. I'm not convinced my answer choice was right, but I have no idea why it was wrong. Moving on.

Q125. Bad answer again? Huh. What's going on? A condition subsequent is a condition which, if triggered, terminates the obligations of one of the parties (or both) to the contract. Ahmet's promise here was the obligation, and not a condition at all. It was to be performed subsequent to Stabler's obligation (to hire a contractor), but that's about the order of obligations, not about conditions. I'm really hoping that the actual MBE writers aren't going to get mixed up like this. Or am I the one confused?

Q130. Here's what I'm thinking: no excuse for impracticability (which is what answer D says, not impossibility which is what the answer choice explanation refers to) because the custom of the industry would allocate the risk of loss of the tools on the builder. The cost of completing the project is thus not grossly disproportionate so as to render it impracticable because builders are expected to either have tools or insure them for their risk of loss.

Q132. If the contract is not yet in existence, a purported assignment is a promise to assign and power to enforce the promise... in equity. Not sure what to do because it does appear to be enforceable in equity. Is the issue that the guy died and you can't proceed in equity against his executors? Not sure.

Q134. creditors have a better claim for sure. why? because the assignment is unenforceable. again, not sure of effect of equitable trust here.

Q135. Geez. I know I sound like jerk, but how on earth is there any daylight between answers B and C? Again, the answer choice does not explain why C is righter than B and I can't guess. Ok, I'll guess anyway. I guess the theory is that C states the rule, B would be an exception to the rule and the fact that it doesn't apply is less central to the facts than the general rule. An aleatory contract is either a contract for insurance or for an annuity (anything else?).

Q136. A two-year 50 mile radius non-compete doesn't seem obviously unreasonable to me. It might be on the edge, but yikes... I sure hope the MBE doesn't actually split this fine a hair.

Q138. Answers C and D are both right. Answer D is apparently "righter." Not sure why. They're both straight up correct and relevant answers.

Q139. If contract says that risk of loss falls on P, P can't recover his nonrefundable payment as a plaintiff. (No issue of mitigation when D is the one who would have had to mitigate.)

Q140. Payment of installment payments would be construed as condition precedent to continued attendance at the class being paid for. That makes sense.

Q141. Promisor may retract his repudiation up to the time the promisee has elected to sue or rescind or excuse the contract.

Q146. With 2-207 fact patterns look for material alteration arising from request for delayed shipment of perishable goods.

I found more than the usual number of odd/off questions in this set. I count at least 7 above for which I understood all the law and did a close enough reading of the facts and can't figure out for the life of me why PMBR says the correct answer is right. If you add those 7 to my score, at least I'm not getting worse. I really do hope that the actual MBE is a lot more well thought-out than some of these PMBR answers.