Question 1 (50 pts)

The “Trust”
Jerry - No legal obligation to establish a trust created by my statement because
I never promised to set up a trust	5
If I did promise to set up a trust, there was no consideration - it was a charitable gift	5
There was no reliance because George had already said he intended to go to ABC	5
George - Yes, a legal obligation did arise out of your statement because
It is a reasonable interpretation to interpret Jerry’s statement about the trust as a promise	5
Consideration can be found in my enrolling in ABC because this was the very act that Jerry was bargaining for (my going to College)	5
If no consideration, then Jerry certainly should have foreseen that I would rely on his promise by enrolling in ABC and justice requires that the promise should be enforced under §90 RS2d	5
The Negotiation over ABC vs Bix
Jerry - No legal obligation because
If there was a legal obligation before, we modified that obligation, limiting my duty to pay tuition by imposing a condition of your transferring to Bix, which you did not do, so under this modification I owe you nothing since condition was not satisfied	4
George - You owe me tuition because
There was no effective modification because there was no consideration for the modification; my rights would be limited by it but you gave up nothing	4
Jerry - This conversation is binding between us because
I was bound to no promise before (see earlier arguments) and this was therefore our only legally enforceable agreement and you didn’t satisfy the condition on my promise	4
In engaging in this conversation, I was giving up my right to defend against your effort to enforce my first “promise” and this abandonment of a legal right is my consideration	4
Miscellaneous	4
TOTAL POINTS QUESTION 1 (of 50 points)

Question 2 (50 pts)

The Finished Shirt
MFYC: we acted in a commercially reasonable manner in making our sale under 2-706 so Buyer owes us the contract price less the resale price ($100-$50 = $50)	6
MFYC: we lost 1 sale under 2-708(2) we are entitled to the lost profit on that sale	4
Buyer: if this was a private sale, no notice required under 2-706(3) and if a public sale, no notice under 2-706(4)(b) and should have been since not perishable so resale is not basis for damages	4
MFYC: this was a public sale; rapidly declining values; 2-706(4)(b) allows sale w/o notice	4
The Not-Yet Made Shirts
MFYC: we could sue Buyer under 2-708(1) for market/contract difference using market price of $50 (price in store) giving us damages per shirt $100-$50=$50 less expenses (labor) saved of $40 per shirt or damages = $10 per shirt ($10 x 11 shirts = $110)	6
MFYC: we could pay $40/shirt, finish the shirts and resell them (2-706); damages would be difference between the contract and resale price ($1100 - $550 = $550); and see above lost volume seller argument	6
MFYC: if we finished them and couldn’t sell them we could sue for the contract price under 2-709	6
Buyer: Finishing the shirts would be commercially unreasonable on these facts - just look at how you are increasing our damages from $110 under 2-708(1) to $550 under 2-706 or even worse under 2-709 - this would be a failure to honor obligation of mitigation and good faith	6
Buyer: If you don’t finish the shirts, the scrap value of the shirts should be subtracted from any damages that we have to pay to you since that is an expense saved under 2-708(1)	4
Miscellaneous	4
TOTAL POINTS QUESTION 2 (of 50 points)

COMMENTS: