Question
On November 1, the following notice was posted in a privately-operated law school:

The faculty, seeking to encourage legal research, offers to any student at this school who wins the current National
Obscenity Law Competition the additional prize of $500. All competing papers must be submitted to the Dean's office
before May 1. A student read this notice on November 2, and thereupon intensified his effort to make his paper on
obscenity law, which he started in October, a winner. The student also left on a counter in the Dean's office a signed
note saying, "I accept the faculty's $500 Obscenity Competition offer." This note was inadvertently placed in the
student's file and never reached the Dean or any faculty member personally. On the following April 1, the above notice
was removed and the following substituted therefore:

The faculty regrets that our offer regarding the National Obscenity Law Competition must be withdrawn. The student's
paper was submitted through the Dean's office on April 15. On May 1, it was announced that the student had won the
National Obscenity Law Competition and the prize of $1,000. The law faculty refused to pay anything.

The promise of the faculty on November 1 was

A) enforceable on principles of promissory estoppel.

B) enforceable because the student accepted the faculty’s offer

C) not enforceable on policy grounds because it produced a noncommercial agreement between a student and
his teachers, analogous to intramural family agreement and informal social commitments.

D) not enforceable, because the student, after entering the National Competition in October, was already under
a duty to perform to the best of his ability.

A victim, injured by a driver in an auto accident, employed an attorney to represent him in the matter. The victim

was chronically insolvent and expressed doubt whether he could promptly get necessary medical treatment.
Accordingly, the attorney wrote into their contract his promise to the victim "to pay from any settlement with the driver
compensation to any physician who provides professional services for the victim's injuries." The contract also provided
that the attorney's duties were "non-assignable." The attorney immediately filed suit against the driver. The victim then
sought and received medical treatment, reasonably valued at $1,000, from a doctor, but failed to inform the doctor of
the attorney's promise.

After receiving a bill from the doctor for $1,000, the victim immediately wrote doctor explaining that he was unable to
pay and enclosing a copy of his contract with the attorney.

The victim then asked the attorney about payment of this bill, but the attorney requested a release from their
employment contract, stating that he would like to refer the victim's claim to a colleague and that the colleague was
willing to represent the victim in the pending lawsuit. The victim wrote a letter to the attorney releasing him from their
contract and agreeing to the colleague's representation. A copy of this letter was sent to the doctor. The colleague
subsequently promised the attorney to represent the victim and soon negotiated a settlement of the victim's claim
against the driver which netted $1,000, all of which was paid by the victim to creditors other than the doctor. The
victim remains insolvent.

In an action by the doctor against the victim to recover $1,000, the doctor's best theory of recovery is that the doctor

A) is a creditor beneficiary of the employment contract between the victim and the attorney.
B) is a donee beneficiary of the employment contract between the victim and the attorney.
C) provided services essential to the preservation of victim's health.
D) has a claim based upon an implied-in-fact contract with victim.

A buyer sent a seller an offer to buy 50 tons of cotton of a specified quality. The offer contained no terms except those
specifying the amount and quality of the cotton. The seller then sent an acknowledgment by fax. The acknowledgment
repeated the terms of the buyer's offer and stated that shipment would occur within five days. Among 12 printed terms
on the acknowledgment was a statement that any dispute about the cotton's quality would be submitted to arbitration.
Neither the buyer nor the seller said anything further about arbitration.
The seller shipped the cotton, and it was accepted by the buyer. A dispute arose between the buyer and the seller as to
the quality of the cotton, and the seller asserted that the dispute had to be submitted to arbitration. The buyer instead
sued the seller in court.

In that suit, which of the following arguments best supports the seller's position that the buyer must submit the dispute
to arbitration?

A) Arbitration is a more efficient method of resolving disputes than resolving them in court.
B) The provision for arbitration did not contradict any term in the buyer's offer.
C) The provision for arbitration did not materially alter the parties’ contract
D) The seller's acknowledgment containing a provision for arbitration constituted a counteroffer that was
accepted by the buyer when it accepted delivery of the cotton.

An assistant professor was hired by a college to teach mathematics and he is now in his third consecutive one-

year contract. Under state law, he cannot acquire tenure until after five consecutive annual contracts. In his third year,
the assistant professor was notified that he was not being rehired for the following year. Applicable state law and
college rules did not require either a statement of reasons or a hearing, and in fact, neither was offered to the assistant
professor.

Which of the following, if established, sets forth the strongest argument the assistant professor could make to compel
the college to furnish him a statement of reasons for the failure to rehire him and an opportunity for a hearing?

A) There is no evidence that tenured teachers are any more qualified than he is.
B) He leased a home in reliance n an oral promise of reemployment by the college president
C) He was the only teacher at the college whose contract was not renewed that year.
D) In the expectation of remaining at the college, he had just moved his elderly parents to the town in
which college is located.

During 2006 a series of arsons, one of which damaged a huge store, occurred in a city. In early 2007, the sitting city
council adopted this resolution:

The city will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 2006 arsons committed here. The
foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, the store, by a written
memorandum to a private detective, proposed to pay the detective $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in
investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 2007, the city council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused
this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations. The local television station having
meanwhile ceased operations. In September 2007, an employee of the store voluntarily confessed to the detective to
having committed all of the 2006 arsons. The store's president thereupon paid the detective at the proposed daily rate
for his investigation and suggested that the detective also claim the city's reward, of which the detective had been
previously unaware. The detective immediately made the claim. In December 2007, as a result of the detective's
investigation, the store's employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has
since refused to pay the detective anything, although the detective swears that he never heard the city's announcement
of the repeal before claiming the reward.

In which of the following ways could the city reward offer be effectively accepted?

A) Only by an offeree's return promise to make a reasonable effort to bring about the arrest and
conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.
B) Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of an arsonist within
the scope of the offer.
C) By an offeree’s supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope
of the offer
D) By an offeree's communication of assent through the same medium (television) used by the city in
making its offer.