Laura, who has a dress shop, likes a certain style of dress and reaches an agreement with ABC Co., the designer and manufacturer of the dress, that she will purchase all the dresses of that style that ABC Co. can produce for $100 each. Later, ABC Co. learns of Sam, Laura's competitor, who is willing to pay double what Laura agreed to pay for the dresses. ABC Co., attempts to avoid the agreement with Laura on the basis that the agreement with Laura was vague and that consideration was lacking. Which of the following is the most likely result?
A) Laura will win on the basis of promissory estoppels.
B) Laura will win because she had a valid output contract.
C) Laura will win because she had a valid requirement contract.
D) ABC Co. will win because the contract with Laura was insufficiently vague.
E) ABC Co. will win so long as Laura was given sufficient notice of its decision to enable her to obtain dresses from some other manufacturer.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q17: In Japan a promise to give property
Q18: The UCC permits requirement, but not output,
Q19: Which of the following would not be
Q20: In a unilateral contract, the consideration for
Q21: Which of the following is true of
Q24: Which of the following is true of
Q25: Which of the following is true regarding
Q26: Courtney, who does not keep up with
Q27: In the case of Smith v. Riley,
Q30: Sam offers Betty his bicycle for $75.Which
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents