Signature Formalism
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
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.
22492_verse_card_sets · CONTRACTS · Choice AYes, because both parties signed the written agreement.
Why it's attractive
The answer jumps from signed writing to enforceability without checking whether Lydia promised anything real.
Why it's wrong
The answer jumps from signed writing to enforceability without checking whether Lydia promised anything real.
22492_verse_card_sets · CONTRACTS · Choice CNo, because the written agreement did not state a fixed number of verse-card sets.
Why it's attractive
The answer treats missing exact quantity as fatal even though variable quantity can work in true requirements/output contracts.
Why it's wrong
The answer treats missing exact quantity as fatal even though variable quantity can work in true requirements/output contracts.
22492_verse_card_sets · CONTRACTS · Choice DYes, because the agreement was a valid requirements contract.
Why it's attractive
The answer sees Paul's all-it-needs promise but does not ask whether Lydia is bound to supply those needs.
Why it's wrong
The answer sees Paul's all-it-needs promise but does not ask whether Lydia is bound to supply those needs.
Practice the questions that use this trap as a distractor and get full Wrong Answer Forensics on submit.
Practice questions using this trap →