All Contract Changes Need New Consideration
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
14490_ruth_embroidery_waiver · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the contract's no-written-change clause was unconscionable as against an amateur pattern designer.
Why it's attractive
The stem gives conduct and reliance facts, not formation unfairness facts.
Why it's wrong
The stem gives conduct and reliance facts, not formation unfairness facts.
14490_ruth_embroidery_waiver · CONTRACTS · Choice CYes, because the contract's no-written-change clause was not expressly waived by the company.
Why it's attractive
It treats the absence of an express signed waiver as the whole case and ignores conduct plus reliance.
Why it's wrong
It treats the absence of an express signed waiver as the whole case and ignores conduct plus reliance.
14490_ruth_embroidery_waiver · CONTRACTS · Choice DYes, because the contract's no-written-change clause was a material part of the agreed exchange and could not be avoided without new consideration.
Why it's attractive
It answers as if Ruth must prove a new modification, but the useful route is waiver after reliance.
Why it's wrong
It answers as if Ruth must prove a new modification, but the useful route is waiver after reliance.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →