Multiple Questions Answers

1. Based upon the reading in the hornbook, what was the likely result of casebook problem 13 in chapter 13, Section 3?
Do not have hornbook
A The rescission was not effective because even if the parties agree to terminate a written contract, if the contract is still executory it cannot be orally rescinded.
B The rescission was effective because most courts allow an oral rescission of a written contract.
C The rescission was not effective unless the defendant changed his position in reliance on the rescission.
D The rescission was not effective because oral rescissions are never allowed for contracts that are within the Statute of Frauds
 
2. Which of the following is a well-recognized exception to the suretyship contracts covered by the Statute of Frauds?
A The main purpose rule.
B The joint obligor rule.
C The principal-surety rule.
D The special promise rule.

3. Based upon your reading of the Potter v Hatter Farms, Inc. case, which statement was not true regarding the applicability of the doctrine of promissory estoppel?
A Every contract or duty within the Uniform Commercial Code imposes an obligation of good faith.
B The elements of promissory estoppel are actual reliance, definite and substantial change of position and foreseeability to the promissory, as a reasonable person, that the promise would induce conduct of the kind that occurred.
C Promissory estoppel was displaced by UCC 2-201 because this doctrine was not expressly mentioned in that statute.
D Substantial evidence to satisfy the requirements of promissory estoppel was present.
 
4. Which of the following statements about a promise by an executor or administrator is not true?
A A promise by an administrator or executor to pay a claim out of the assets of the decedent’s estate is within the Statute of Frauds.
B The term "within the Statute of Frauds" means that the Statute of Frauds requires a record for this kind of transaction.
C An executor or administrator can promise to pay a debt of an estate from his own funds.
D A promise by an administrator or executor to pay a claim out his own personal funds is within the Statute of Frauds.