Wesla, an automobile manufacturer, entered into a contract with Gooyear, a tire distributor. The contract provided that Gooyear would deliver to Wesla 500 tires on the 1st of each month for $5,000 per shipment, with payment due upon receipt.Wesla and Gooyear properly fulfilled their contractual obligations for two months. The day after the third tire delivery, Gooyear’s president visited Wesla and found the automobiles produced with his company’s tires to be a “disgrace.” To protect Gooyear’s reputation, the president announced that he will not send any additional tire shipments. Wesla immediately brought a breach of contract action against Gooyear.Which party is likely to prevail in the breach of contract suit?

Stanley agreed in writing to deliver to Target 500 described tumblers at $20 each F.O.B. Stanley’s place of business. The contract provided that “neither party will assign this contract without the written consent of the other.” Stanley placed the tumblers on board a carrier on January 30. On February 1, Stanley assigned all his rights under the contract to a third party in a signed writing. Stanley did not request and did not get Target’s consent to this transaction. On February 2, the tumblers, while in transit, were destroyed in a derailment of the carrier’s railroad car. In an action by Target against Stanley for breach of contract, Target probably will:

Owen, the owner of Cruise Cars, had Amelia, an adult daughter who needed a car in her employment but had only $3,000 with which to buy one. Owen wrote to her, “Give me your $3,000, and I’ll give you a car from our lot that has been used as a demonstrator.” Amelia thanked her father and paid him the $3,000. As both Owen and Aemlia knew, a demonstrator is reasonably worth $10,000. After Amelia had paid the $3,000, but before the car was delivered to her, one of the sales staff at Cruise Cars sold and delivered the same car to a customer for $10,000. Neither the salesperson nor the customer was aware of the transaction between Owen and Amelia. Does Amelia, after rejecting a tendered return of the $3,000 by Owen, have an action against him for breach of contract?

Carlos, a student at the local community college whose sole focus in life was music, inherited Thunder, a thoroughbred whose naughty behavior made him a pest around the barn. Carlos sold Thunder for $2,500 to Tim, an experienced racehorse trainer, who knew that Carlos was ignorant about horses. At the time of sale, Carlos said to Tim, “I hate to say it, but Thunder is bad-tempered and nothing special.” Soon after the sale, Thunder won three races and earned $500,000 for Tim.  Which of the following facts, if established by Carlos, would best support Carlos’s chance of obtaining a rescission of Thunder’s sale to Tim?

Stella borrowed $10,000 from First Bank. Soon thereafter, Stella filed for bankruptcy, having paid nothing on her debt to First Bank. Five years after the debt had been discharged in bankruptcy, Stella contracted to sell certain goods to a buyer for $10,000. The contract provided that the buyer would pay the $10,000 to First Bank “as payment of the $10,000 Stella owes First Bank.” The only debt that Stella ever owed First Bank is the $10,000 debt that was discharged in bankruptcy. Stella delivered the goods to the buyer, who accepted them. If First Bank becomes aware of the contract between Stella and the buyer, and the buyer refuses to pay anything to First Bank, is First Bank likely to succeed in an action against the buyer for $5,000?

Picasso contracted with Frankie in a written agreement to paint three identical landscapes for $1,000 each. The contract provides for the payment of $3,000 upon Picasso’s completion of the work on all three landscapes. Picasso did not ask for any payment when the first landscape was completely painted, but he did demand $2,000 after painting the second landscape.  Is Frankie obligated to pay $2,000?

Travis, a 17-year-old, contracted to buy a 2005 Toyota Tacoma from Used Cars R Us for $4,200 six months before his 18th birthday. The agreement required Travis to give $1,000 as a down payment with the balance to be paid monthly to Fancy Financing. Travis’s first eight payments were made regularly until his driver’s license was suspended. Travis then informed Fancy Financing that no further payments would be forthcoming.Fancy Financing sued for the balance. The age of majority in Travis’s state is 18 years.Would Travis be liable for the balance due on the Tacoma?

Oranges Computers and Big Ten University contracted in writing for Oranges to provide Big Iron, a mainframe computer using a new technology that was then under development but not perfected, at a price substantially lower than that of a similar mainframe using current technology.  The contract’s delivery term was F.O.B. Big Ten University, on or before June 30. Oranges tendered Big Iron to Big Ten University on July 15, and Big Ten University rejected it because of the delay.  If Oranges sues Big Ten University for breach of contract, which of the following facts, if proved, will best support a recovery by Oranges?

Pauline, a wine distributor, entered into oral negotiations with Henry’s Organic Wines. Pauline wished to secure an exclusive distributorship for Henry’s Organic Wines in the Pacific Northwest. At the end of the first stage of oral negotiations, the parties had come to an agreement on the major points, and only a few minor points of disagreement remained. Both, however, were anxious to begin distribution of the wine in the Pacific Northwest, and Henry’s Organic Wines assured Pauline, “Don’t worry about it; we’ll work these things out.” Assuming from this that she would be the Pacific Northwest distributor for the wine, Pauline leased larger facilities, bought a number of trucks, and hired new workers. Shortly thereafter, Henry’s Organic Wines informed Pauline that another distributor, and not Pauline, would receive the Pacific Northwest distributorship.If Pauline prevails in a suit against Henry’s Organic Wines, it will most likely be because the court applies which of the following theories?

Tim, an owner of land who was also a home contractor, agreed in writing with Justine to build a house to Justine’s specifications on his (Tim’s) land and then sell the house and lot to Justine. The contract provided that the house was to be completed by March 1, with full payment due at that time. On March 1, the house was nearly complete, but due to delays in the delivery of materials, Tim would need 20 more days to finish construction. On March 5, after discovering that the house had not yet been completed, Justine notified Tim in writing of her election to cancel the contract because of Tim’s failure to deliver the house by March 1. Tim responded that, due to an unanticipated strike at his supplier’s company, performance had been unforeseeably delayed and that the house would be ready by March 20. Justine responded that she would no longer accept delivery of the house and land. Tim then brought an action to recover damages for breach of contract.Who will prevail?