← All traps
MisconceptionObserved in bank

Fairness Over Rules

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

  • 14455_tutor-piano · CONTRACTS · Choice AOnly the student is in breach and liable for the teacher's damages, if any.

    Why it's attractive

    The student's payment duty was not yet due; refusing to pay early is not a breach

    Why it's wrong

    The student's payment duty was not yet due; refusing to pay early is not a breach

  • 14455_tutor-piano · CONTRACTS · Choice BBoth parties took reasonable positions, and neither is in breach.

    Why it's attractive

    The teacher quit without contractual justification; 'both reasonable' is not a legal category when one party clearly repudiated

    Why it's wrong

    The teacher quit without contractual justification; 'both reasonable' is not a legal category when one party clearly repudiated

  • 14455_tutor-piano · CONTRACTS · Choice DBoth parties are in breach, and each is entitled to damages, if any, from the other.

    Why it's attractive

    The teacher did breach, but the student's refusal to pay something not yet due is not a breach

    Why it's wrong

    The teacher did breach, but the student's refusal to pay something not yet due is not a breach

  • 22456_tutor_rescission · CONTRACTS · Choice ANo, because the tutor was the one who asked to be released from the agreement.

    Why it's attractive

    The answer says 'because the tutor was the one who asked.' The word 'one' signals a fairness heuristic, not a legal test. Mutual rescission turns on mutual assent and bilateral executory status — not who initiated.

    Why it's wrong

    The answer says 'because the tutor was the one who asked.' The word 'one' signals a fairness heuristic, not a legal test. Mutual rescission turns on mutual assent and bilateral executory status — not who initiated.

  • 22456_tutor_rescission · CONTRACTS · Choice BYes, because the mother received value from the tutor's services.

    Why it's attractive

    The answer says 'because the mother received value.' The word 'received' is true as a fact — but the legal conclusion does not follow. Receiving value does not create a payment obligation after mutual rescission.

    Why it's wrong

    The answer says 'because the mother received value.' The word 'received' is true as a fact — but the legal conclusion does not follow. Receiving value does not create a payment obligation after mutual rescission.

  • 22456_tutor_rescission · CONTRACTS · Choice DYes, because the tutor is entitled to be paid for her partial performance.

    Why it's attractive

    The answer says 'because the tutor is entitled to be paid for her partial performance.' The word 'entitled' is an overclaim. Partial performance creates a right to payment only if the contract is breached — not if the parties mutually agree to cancel.

    Why it's wrong

    The answer says 'because the tutor is entitled to be paid for her partial performance.' The word 'entitled' is an overclaim. Partial performance creates a right to payment only if the contract is breached — not if the parties mutually agree to cancel.

Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.

Practice questions using this trap →
Fairness Over Rules — Trap Taxonomy | BarMatrix