Contracts for the Sale of Real Property Self-Quiz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lisa owns an apartment building. She orally leases an apartment to Tina “for 5 years, with rents to be paid on the first of every month.” Is this lease enforceable under these terms?
Choice 1 Yes; because only permanent sales of land need to be in writing
Choice 2 Yes, because the periods of the lease are only one month
Choice 3 No; because this is a transfer of interest in real estate for five years
Choice 4 No; because all transfers of interest in real estate need to be in writing
Lisa owns an apartment building. She and Tina agree that Tina will buy a specific apartment in the building for $50,000. They commit the contract to writing, but the contract does not list the agreed on price. Both parties sign the agreement. Later, Tina changes her mind and refuses to pay for the apartment. Lisa wants to enforce the contract. Can she?
Choice 1 No; because material terms are missing from the written contract, and so the writing does not satisfy the Statute of Frauds
Choice 2 Yes; because an apartment is not real estate, and so it does not fall under the Statute of Frauds
Choice 3 Yes; because the Statute of Frauds only requires quantity, and in this case, the writing does list the quantity (one apartment)
Choice 4 Yes; because the oral agreement can supplement the written agreement to make it complete
Homer orally agrees to sell Blackacre to Smithers for $500,000. Smithers pays Homer the $500,000 and then moves onto Blackacre. Two months later, Homer changes his mind and demands that Smithers move off of Blackacre and he offers Smithers his money back. Smithers refuses, saying that there was a valid contract for the transfer of Blackacre. Homer claims that the contract violates the Statute of Frauds and so he is entitled to take back Blackacre. Who will win?
Choice 1 Homer; because the contract violated the Statute of Frauds because there was no writing and a contract under the Statute of Frauds is never enforceable without a writing
Choice 2 Homer; because Smithers did not reach the level of performance necessary to satisfy the Statute of Frauds
Choice 3 Smithers, because he satisfied the Statute of Frauds by performance
Choice 4 Smithers, because the Statute of frauds does not require a writing in this case
Bart wants to sell his house. He hires Lisa to broker the sale of the house and he sets a purchase price for the house of $400,000. Lisa is to get a 6% commission. Lisa puts advertisements in the newspaper and uses other avenues to find a buyer. Eventually, Lisa puts Bart in contact with Apu, who contracts to buy Bart’s house for $400,000. However, before the closing, Apu moves to India and fails to go through with the contract. Lisa sues Bart for $24,000. Under the traditional rule, can she recover?
Choice 1 No; because the house was not sold
Choice 2 No; if Lisa was less than diligent in advertising the house
Choice 3 Yes; because Apu was ready, willing and able to buy the house
Choice 4 Yes; because Lisa should be compensated for her effort in advertising the house
Bart wants to sell his house. He hires Lisa to broker the sale of the house and he sets a purchase price for the house of $400,000. Lisa is to get a 6% commission. Lisa puts advertisements in the newspaper and uses other avenues to find a buyer. Eventually, Lisa puts Bart in contact with Apu, who contracts to buy Bart’s house for $400,000. However, before the closing, Bart backs out and refuses to go through with the contract. Lisa sues Bart for $24,000. Under the “modern” (minority) rule, can she recover?
Choice 1 No; because the house was not sold
Choice 2 No; if Lisa was less than diligent in advertising the house
Choice 3 Yes; because Apu was ready, willing and able to buy the house
Choice 4 Yes; because Lisa should be compensated for her effort in advertising the house
Al contracts to sell Blackacre to Brenda for $200,000. At closing time, Brenda announces that she will not go through with the purchase because she did a title search and did not find Al’s name anywhere in the records of the history of Blackacre. Al claims that the reason for this is that he acquired Blackacre through adverse possession. Brenda says that this is not good enough. Al sues Brenda for breach of contract. Who will win?
Choice 1 Brenda, because her title search did not turn up Al’s name in the Blackacre property records
Choice 2 Brenda, unless Al can show some hard proof, such as a court judgment, affirming that he did acquire title to Blackacre through adverse possession
Choice 3 Al, because Brenda should have done her title search before she signed the contract
Choice 4 Al, because title acquired by adverse possession is marketable
Al contracts to sell Blackacre to Brenda for $200,000. The contract is signed on January 1 and the closing is set for April 1. On March 1, who owns Blackacre?
Choice 1 Al
Choice 2 Brenda
Choice 3 Al is the equitable owner, but Brenda is the legal owner
Choice 4 Al is the legal owner, but Brenda is the equitable owner
Al contracts to sell Blackacre to Brenda for $200,000. The contract is signed on January 1 and the closing is set for April 1. On March 1, a hurricane destroys a structure on Blackacre and reduces its fair market value to $100,000. At the closing, Brenda claims that she should only have to pay $100,000. Is she correct?
Choice 1 Yes
Choice 2 No
Choice 3 Maybe
Al contracts to sell Blackacre to Brenda for $200,000. The contract is signed on January 1 and the closing is set for April 1. In March, the price of real estate shoots up and Blackacre is now worth $300,000. On April 1, Al refuses to turn over Blackacre to Brenda. Brenda sues Al for breach of contract. What will be the most likely result?
Choice 1 Brenda will be able to force Al to turn over Blackacre for $200,000
Choice 2 Brenda will be able to force Al to turn over Blackacre for $300,000
Choice 3 Brenda will not be able to force Al to turn over Blackacre, but she will be able to collect $100,000 in damages for breach of contract
Choice 4 Brenda will lose, because circumstances have changed so much since the contract was signed as to make enforcement of the contract unconscionable

© 2003 - 2018 National Paralegal College