Can someone explain this to me, please? Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:35 pm
Can someone explain this to me, please?
Question:
A contracted with B to paint B's house for 5k with a 2,500 as down payment because the material is of a special kind. B later tells A that is going to pay 1000 now and promises to pay the rest in three days, but expects the work to be done on time. Next day, B finds out that the material only costs 1000 and refuses to pay more than the 1000. They both sue for breach of K.
State's published better answer reads:
Mutual mistake.
Is this really a mutual mistake issue?
A contracted with B to paint B's house for 5k with a 2,500 as down payment because the material is of a special kind. B later tells A that is going to pay 1000 now and promises to pay the rest in three days, but expects the work to be done on time. Next day, B finds out that the material only costs 1000 and refuses to pay more than the 1000. They both sue for breach of K.
State's published better answer reads:
Mutual mistake.
Is this really a mutual mistake issue?
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
Re: Can someone explain this to me, please?
Yes, if they both really believed the material cost that much AND person A didn't have reason to know/did know that it didn't.Jmari wrote:Question:
A contracted with B to paint B's house for 5k with a 2,500 as down payment because the material is of a special kind. B later tells A that is going to pay 1000 now and promises to pay the rest in three days, but expects the work to be done on time. Next day, B finds out that the material only costs 1000 and refuses to pay more than the 1000. They both sue for breach of K.
State's published better answer reads:
Mutual mistake.
Is this really a mutual mistake issue?
- rpupkin
- Posts: 5653
- Joined: Mon Dec 09, 2013 10:32 pm
Re: Can someone explain this to me, please?
I really hope that question did not appear on an actual bar exam. It's horribly written.
-
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:44 pm
Re: Can someone explain this to me, please?
Jmari wrote:Question:
A contracted with B to paint B's house for 5k with a 2,500 as down payment because the material is of a special kind. B later tells A that is going to pay 1000 now and promises to pay the rest in three days, but expects the work to be done on time. Next day, B finds out that the material only costs 1000 and refuses to pay more than the 1000. They both sue for breach of K.
State's published better answer reads:
Mutual mistake.
Is this really a mutual mistake issue?
As it is written the question doesn't even make sense. For mutual mistake to apply to would have to be a basic assumption upon which they both based the contract on. I am not getting that here.
Simply mistaking value does not render a contract unenforceable for mutual mistake of material fact.
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:35 pm
Re: Can someone explain this to me, please?
This is straight from Ohio F2017 contract essay, which I sat for.rpupkin wrote:I really hope that question did not appear on an actual bar exam. It's horribly written.
Last edited by Jmari on Thu Jul 20, 2017 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:35 pm
Re: Can someone explain this to me, please?
Brian_Wildcat wrote:Jmari wrote:Question:
A contracted with B to paint B's house for 5k with a 2,500 as down payment because the material is of a special kind. B later tells A that is going to pay 1000 now and promises to pay the rest in three days, but expects the work to be done on time. Next day, B finds out that the material only costs 1000 and refuses to pay more than the 1000. They both sue for breach of K.
State's published better answer reads:
Mutual mistake.
Is this really a mutual mistake issue?
As it is written the question doesn't even make sense. For mutual mistake to apply to would have to be a basic assumption upon which they both based the contract on. I am not getting that here.
Simply mistaking value does not render a contract unenforceable for mutual mistake of material fact.
Exactly! I don't see it. This was on the F2017 Ohio bar. The answer made no sense to me. You are more than welcome to look at the published essays. I was shocked when I read the answer.
-
- Posts: 283
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2015 6:53 pm
Re: Can someone explain this to me, please?
What? This isn't just a value issue; the value materially affects the work itself. My understanding is that mistakes of value normally don't count because they're isolated to the selling of an item (a portrait), not an integral part of a service contract.Jmari wrote:Brian_Wildcat wrote:Jmari wrote:Question:
A contracted with B to paint B's house for 5k with a 2,500 as down payment because the material is of a special kind. B later tells A that is going to pay 1000 now and promises to pay the rest in three days, but expects the work to be done on time. Next day, B finds out that the material only costs 1000 and refuses to pay more than the 1000. They both sue for breach of K.
State's published better answer reads:
Mutual mistake.
Is this really a mutual mistake issue?
As it is written the question doesn't even make sense. For mutual mistake to apply to would have to be a basic assumption upon which they both based the contract on. I am not getting that here.
Simply mistaking value does not render a contract unenforceable for mutual mistake of material fact.
Exactly! I don't see it. This was on the F2017 Ohio bar. The answer made no sense to me. You are more than welcome to look at the published essays. I was shocked when I read the answer.
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:35 pm
Re: Can someone explain this to me, please?
With the way the question is worded, I still would not have spotted the issue.
-
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 1:10 am
Re: Can someone explain this to me, please?
Do they provide the other answer choices?
-
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:35 pm
Re: Can someone explain this to me, please?
No, they only provide one "better answer." which they believe is the better out of all of the answers. This was an essay on the exam, not an MBE.californiauser wrote:Do they provide the other answer choices?