Battle Of Forms
This trap appears as a wrong-answer choice in 2 active questions. Spotting how it is built is the repair: read each example's “why it's attractive” before the “why it's wrong.”
Subject distribution
- Contracts2
Example wrong choices
14422_scripture_journal_arbitration · CONTRACTS · Choice AThe arbitration provision did not contradict any term in Martha's offer.
Why it's attractive
The offer's silence makes the clause additional, but this answer stops before the material-alteration question.
Why it's wrong
The offer's silence makes the clause additional, but this answer stops before the material-alteration question.
14422_scripture_journal_arbitration · CONTRACTS · Choice BPaul's acknowledgment containing the arbitration provision constituted a counteroffer that Martha accepted when she accepted delivery of the journals.
Why it's attractive
The acknowledgment repeated the deal and did not say acceptance was conditional on arbitration.
Why it's wrong
The acknowledgment repeated the deal and did not say acceptance was conditional on arbitration.
14422_scripture_journal_arbitration · CONTRACTS · Choice CArbitration would resolve the quality dispute more efficiently than court litigation.
Why it's attractive
Efficiency does not answer whether the clause became part of the contract.
Why it's wrong
Efficiency does not answer whether the clause became part of the contract.
14452_olive_lamp_liability_cap · CONTRACTS · Choice AThere is no contract because Lydia did not consent to the $250 liability-cap clause in Galilee's form.
Why it's attractive
No consent explains why the cap is out, not why the contract is gone.
Why it's wrong
No consent explains why the cap is out, not why the contract is gone.
14452_olive_lamp_liability_cap · CONTRACTS · Choice CThere is an enforceable contract whose terms include the $250 liability-cap clause in Galilee's form, because liquidation of damages is expressly authorized by the Uniform Commercial Code.
Why it's attractive
The choice talks about a nearby UCC damages rule instead of the added-term gate.
Why it's wrong
The choice talks about a nearby UCC damages rule instead of the added-term gate.
14452_olive_lamp_liability_cap · CONTRACTS · Choice DThere is no contract because the $250 liability-cap clause in Galilee's form is a material alteration of Lydia's offer.
Why it's attractive
The material alteration is real, but the consequence is cap-out, not no-contract.
Why it's wrong
The material alteration is real, but the consequence is cap-out, not no-contract.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →