Services
Discover
Homeschooling
Ask a Question
Log in
Sign up
Filters
Done
Question type:
Essay
Multiple Choice
Short Answer
True False
Matching
Topic
Business
Study Set
The Legal Environment Study Set 1
Quiz 10: Contracts
Path 4
Access For Free
Share
All types
Filters
Study Flashcards
Practice Exam
Learn
Question 101
True/False
The Statute of Frauds applies to the sale of all vehicles.
Question 102
True/False
There must be privity between the parties in a case of fraud.
Question 103
True/False
The parol evidence rule allows oral testimony to revise the terms of contracts written more than one year ago.
Question 104
True/False
In Deschamps v. Treasure State Trailer Court, where the buyer of a trailer court said he was promised the water system was in good condition when in fact it was not, the Montana Supreme Court held that oral testimony could not contradict the written contract.
Question 105
True/False
Even if misrepresentation is innocent, the party who engaged in misrepresentation is liable for losses suffered by the party who received the bad information.
Question 106
True/False
Fraud requires scienter; that is the party accused of fraud must have wanted to mislead the other party.
Question 107
True/False
The Statute of Frauds requires that a promise to pay debts of another person must be in writing to be a valid contract.
Question 108
True/False
The parol evidence rule holds that oral testimony by one party that contradicts a written contract cannot be accepted as evidence in court.
Question 109
True/False
The parol evidence rule allows oral testimony to help the court understand a contract in which fraud is claimed.
Question 110
True/False
The Statute of Frauds holds that if you are going to paint my house two years from today, the contract should be in writing.
Question 111
True/False
Misrepresentation, unlike fraud, is not grounds for rescinding a contract.
Question 112
True/False
In Deschamps v. Treasure State Trailer Court, where the buyer of a trailer court said he was promised the water system was in good condition when in fact it was not, the Montana Supreme Court held that the oral promise could amend the contract.