Courts Police Price
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
17112_peter-guitar-lesson · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the Rate Summary objectively stated that it was not a commitment until Peter confirmed his schedule and approved the lesson plan.
Why it's attractive
The choice says 'educational services are transactions in goods.' Guitar instruction is a service. The UCC does not apply. This is a flat misstatement.
Why it's wrong
The choice says 'educational services are transactions in goods.' Guitar instruction is a service. The UCC does not apply. This is a flat misstatement.
17112_peter-guitar-lesson · CONTRACTS · Choice CYes, because educational services are transactions in goods and the UCC fills open terms.
Why it's attractive
The choice asks whether $900 is adequate consideration. Courts don't police adequacy. The real issue is whether there was an offer.
Why it's wrong
The choice asks whether $900 is adequate consideration. Courts don't police adequacy. The real issue is whether there was an offer.
17112_peter-guitar-lesson · CONTRACTS · Choice DNo, but only because the $900 fee was probably too low to constitute adequate consideration.
Why it's attractive
The choice says 'signing any written summary forms a contract.' 'Any' is an absolute. The document said it was not a commitment. An absolute rule contradicts the facts.
Why it's wrong
The choice says 'signing any written summary forms a contract.' 'Any' is an absolute. The document said it was not a commitment. An absolute rule contradicts the facts.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →