Admission Of Contract Equals All Terms
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 1 active question. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Contracts1
Example wrong choices
20100_fish_and_loaves_keychains · CONTRACTS · Choice ABarnabas may enforce the contract for all 2,400 keychains if the market price proves that the larger quantity was commercially reasonable.
Why it's attractive
The student sees commercial reasonableness as a practical way to validate the seller's larger number. The breaker is that market reasonableness is not the admission-exception cap.
Why it's wrong
Market reasonableness is a fabricated expansion yardstick for the UCC admission exception.
Spot it next time
Ask what number Lydia actually admitted.
20100_fish_and_loaves_keychains · CONTRACTS · Choice CBarnabas may enforce the contract for all 2,400 keychains because Lydia admitted that some contract existed.
Why it's attractive
The student treats Lydia's admission that some contract existed as enough to enforce the entire alleged deal. The breaker is that the admission exception stops at the quantity admitted.
Why it's wrong
The choice overextends admission of some contract to all alleged goods.
Spot it next time
Treat contract existence and admitted quantity as separate slots.
20100_fish_and_loaves_keychains · CONTRACTS · Choice DBarnabas may enforce none of the contract because Lydia disputes the quantity.
Why it's attractive
The student focuses on the disputed 2,400 and concludes that the whole oral deal fails. The breaker is that Lydia admitted 750, so the result is not none.
Why it's wrong
The choice says none even though the buyer admitted 750.
Spot it next time
Reject all-or-none framing when a middle number is admitted.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →