Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
4. Which of the following, if proved, would best support the wallpaper hanger's defense?
Three other competing hangers sent the general contractor similar bids in the respective amounts of $18,000, $19,000, and $20,000. The general contractor used the wallpaper hanger's $14,000 figure in preparing and submitting her own sealed bid on Doctors' Building. Before the bids were opened, the wallpaper hanger truthfully advised the general contractor that the former's telegraphic sub-bid had been based on a $4,000 computational error and was therefore revoked. Shortly thereafter, the general contractor was awarded the Doctors' Building construction contract and subsequently contracted with another paperhanger for a price of $18,000. The general contractor now sues the wallpaper hanger to recover $4,000.
/s/ the wallpaper hanger
Will do all paperhanging on new Doctors' Building, per owner's specs, for $14,000 if you accept within reasonable time after main contract awarded.
A wallpaper hanger sent a general contractor, this telegram:
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. The bid may be found to be irrevocable on a reliance theory even in the absence of an option promise supported by consideration.
B is incorrect. This answer choice is irrelevant. It would not be a defense that the wallpaper hanger's sub-bid expressly requested acceptance by the general contractor. An option promise is simply an option, which is defined as a promise which meets the requirements for the formation of a contract and limits the promisor's power to revoke an offer.
C is incorrect. The mere fact that the general contractor would make a substantial profit on the contract does not make the effect of the mistake unconscionable.