A buyer and a seller entered into an oral agreement for the purchase of a house. The buyer gave the seller a deposit. Three days before the scheduled closing, the seller executed a deed which describes the property but does not recite the purchase price, and he placed it in a folder that he intended to take to the closing. The following day, the seller suffered a severe stroke, and the court appointed a guardian for him. The buyer appeared at the closing at the appropriate time, but neither the seller nor his guardian appeared. The guardian refuses to complete the transaction. In a suit for specific performance, brought by the buyer against the seller and his guardian,
A. The buyer will lose, because the seller’s incapacity terminated the contract.
B. The buyer will lose, because of the Statute of Frauds.
C. The buyer will win, because the deed constitutes a memorandum.
D. The buyer will win, because the placement of the signed deed in the folder was constructive delivery.
After the President pardoned a drug dealer, who was convicted on federal drug charges, Congress duly enacted a law which provides that the President can pardon individuals convicted for drug offenses and sentenced to prison only after they have served one-half of their minimum term.
If the constitutionality of the statute was properly challenged, the U.S. Supreme Court would most likely hold that it is:
A. Constitutional, pursuant to the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce.
B. Constitutional, pursuant to the power of Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to its enumerated powers.
C. Unconstitutional, because the act unconstitutionally restricts the inherent powers of the President.
D. Unconstitutional, because the power of the President to pardon for federal crimes is explicitly granted by the U.S. Constitution.
A singer and a producer signed a document, in which the singer agreed to perform at a city concert hall on February 15, 16, and 17, in return for 10% of the gross income from the sale of tickets. The city concert hall is owned by the producer and uninsured. On February 14, the concert hall was destroyed by a fire, through no fault of either the singer or the producer, after the singer had arrived in the city ready to perform.
In a suit between the singer and the producer:
A. The singer is entitled to nothing, because of the doctrine of frustration of purpose.
B. The singer is entitled to nothing, because of the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
C. The singer is entitled to recover expenses from the producer.
D. The singer is entitled to $6,000, if $60,000 worth of tickets had been sold prior to February 15.
