3) Where a contract for the sale of goods does not mention the place of delivery for the
goods, which of the following is true?
- The seller is obligated to deliver the goods to the buyer’s place of business.
- The contract fails for failure to state a material term.
- The seller is obligated to deliver the goods at the seller’s place of business.
- Sellers without a place of business are obligated to deliver the goods at the seller’s
- Both C and D are true.
5)The parol evidence rule would not allow which of the following items into evidence
when interpreting a written contract?
- Evidence of the meaning of a term in the parties’ line of business that differs from the
meaning of that term in everyday language.
- Evidence based on prior conduct in similar contracts between the parties to explain
the meaning of an ambiguous term in the contract.
- Evidence of a price change agreed upon after the contract was signed.
- Evidence of an oral statement regarding the contract price made when the written
contract was signed that was different from the price in the written contract.
- All the above would be allowed into evidence under the parol evidence rule.
6) What is required to meet the writing requirement of the statute of frauds under the
- In cases where both parties are merchants, a writing signed by the party to be charged
or a written confirmation of an oral agreement that is sent by one party to the other
and not objected to by the other party; in all other transactions, a writing signed by
the party to be charged.
- In cases where at least one party is a merchant, either a writing signed by the party
to be charged or a written confirmation of an oral agreement that is sent to the mer-
chant and not objected to by the merchant; in transactions not involving a merchant,
a writing signed by the person to be charged.
- In cases where both parties are merchants, a writing signed by the party other than
the party to be charged at the end of the document.
- In all cases, a writing signed by the party to be charged.
- In all cases, a writing signed by all parties to the contract.
13) Under Article 2A of the UCC, for which types of lease(s) is the risk of loss on the les-
sor during the term of the lease?
- Ordinary leases.
- Both ordinary and finance leases.
- Neither ordinary nor finance leases.
- Loss-shifting leases.
14) In Lindholm v. Brandt, when Malmberg sold Lindholm’s “Red Elvis” to Brandt, the
court found that:
- Malmberg had been entrusted with the artwork but had a void title because he
breached the terms of the entrustment so he couldn’t pass good title to Brandt.
- Malmberg had been entrusted with the artwork and could pass the voidable title to
Brandt because Brandt qualified as a good faith purchaser.
- Malmberg had stolen the artwork and could pass the void title to Brandt because
Brandt qualified as a good faith purchaser.
- Malmberg had been entrusted with the artwork and could pass the void title to Brandt
because Brandt qualified as a good faith purchaser.
- Malmberg had stolen the artwork, so he couldn’t pass his void title to Brandt.
15) Josh had a computer that needed repair. He took the computer to a used computer
dealer that repaired computers as well. While talking with the owner, Josh learned
that the owner also knew how to repair bicycles. Josh happened to need some re-
pairs done on his bike, so he left it at the computer shop as well. A week later, Josh
went to pick up his bike and computer. When he got to the store, the owner said he
had bad news. He had hired a new employee who was totally incompetent and had
sold a number of items that were in for repair. He sold both Josh’s computer and his
bike. The store owner knows who purchased them from the credit card records. In
this situation, assuming he can locate the purchasers, Josh can recover:
- his computer, but not his bike.
- both his bike and his computer.
- his bike, but not his computer.
- neither his bike nor his computer.
- the computer only if Josh can establish that the purchases had not resold it.
16) Assuming that goods are nonconforming and that the nonconformity substantially
impairs their value to this buyer, which of the following additional factors must be
present for a valid revocation of the acceptance of goods? Unit 4 Examination 274 Business Law
- Nothing else is necessary to revoke the acceptance of the goods.
- The goods were accepted before the nonconformity was discovered and the seller or lessor
assured the buyer or lessee that the goods were conforming.
- The goods were accepted before the nonconformity was discovered, and the noncon-
formity was difficult to discover.
- Both B and C must be present in order to revoke the acceptance of the goods.
- If either B or C is present, the acceptance of the go
17) Which of the following must be met in every instance in order to revoke an accep-
tance of goods?
- The seller’s promise to cure the nonconformity has not been met.
- The seller must have fully paid for the goods prior to revocation.
- The nonconformity is one that substantially impairs the value of the goods.
- The goods were accepted before discovery of the nonconformity and the seller had
assured the buyer that the goods were conforming.
- The goods were accepted before discovery of the nonconformity and the nonconfor-
mity was one that was difficult to discover.
23) In Elsroth v. Johnson & Johnson, involving cyanide placed in Tylenol capsules causing
Diane Elsroth’s death, the court found:
- the construction of tamperproof packaging is impossible.
- Johnson & Johnson had not followed Food and Drug Administration guidelines appro-
priately by using only three tamper resistance techniques when a minimum of four
- liability for defective design involves the product itself but not the product packaging.
- A and B only.
- A and C only.