In which of the following would the court find that the contract is void (i.e.,not a binding agreement)?
A) After some negotiation, Paul accepted Monafo's offer to sell him the painting for $5000. When the contract was put in writing, the price was incorrectly stated as $500. Monafo could prove the terms of the oral contract.
B) Two parties contracted for a tanker of oil, but unknown to either of them at the time of the contract, the tanker had caught on fire and all the oil had burnt.
C) Kramer, thinking that the city was going to build a new school in the area, offered to buy a house. She had not talked with the seller or his agent about the possibility of a school. After the offer was accepted, she learned that there would be no such new school.
D) Joe bought pizzas, but after eating one he realized that purchasing them was a big mistake.
E) Ry and Ali, two parties to a contract, each had a different understanding about the term "royalties" in the contract. The court found Ali's interpretation the more reasonable.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The contract is void due to the occurrence of an unforeseeable event that destroyed the subject matter of the contract (the tanker of oil).

Answer: C
 Kramer's mistake about the availability of a new school in the area is a unilateral mistake on her part, which does not render the contract void. The contract remains binding, but Kramer may have legal remedies for her mistake, such as rescission or reformation.

Answer: D
 Joe's dissatisfaction with the quality or value of the pizzas does not make the contract void. He may have grounds for a breach of warranty or contract claim, but that would not invalidate the existence of the contract.

The other options are not the best choice because they involve issues that do not make the contract void, such as a clerical error in the written contract (A) or a disagreement about the interpretation of a term in the contract (E).

In Which of the Following Would the Court Find That