PrevPrev Go to previous topic
NextNext Go to next topic
K quest from Adaptibar -- wth?
Last Post 03/22/2019 1:45 PM by BookwormBill
3 Replies
AddThis - Bookmarking and Sharing Button
Sort:

--

01/25/2014 6:25 PM
Author: Stab My Eyes Out! [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply


On March 1, a computer programming company orally agreed with a department store to write a set of programs for the department store's computer and to coordinate the programs with the department store's billing methods. A subsequent memo, signed by both parties, provided in its entirety:

The department store will pay the computer programming company $20,000 in two equal installments within one month of completion if the computer programming company is successful in shortening by one-half the processing time for the financial transactions now handled on the department store's Zenon 747 computer; the computer programming company to complete by July 1. This agreement may be amended only by a signed writing.
On June 6, the computer programming company demanded $10,000, saying the job was one-half done. After the department store denied liability, the parties orally agreed that the department store should deposit $20,000 in escrow, pending completion to the satisfaction of the department store's computer systems manager. The escrow deposit was thereupon made. On July 5, the computer programming company completed the programs, having used an amount of time in which it could have earned $18,000 had it devoted that time to other jobs. Tests by the computer programming company and the department store's computer systems manager then showed that the computer programs, not being perfectly coordinated with the department store's billing methods, cut processing time by only 47 percent. They would, however, save the department store $12,000 a year. Further, if the department store would spend $5,000 to change its invoice preparation methods, as recommended by the computer programming company, the programs would cut processing time by a total of 58 percent, saving the department store another $8,000 a year. The department store's computer systems manager refused in good faith to certify satisfactory completion. The department store requested the escrow agent to return the $20,000 and asserted that nothing was owed to the computer programming company even though the department store continued to use the programs.

Assume that the computer programming company's delay in completion did not give the department store the right to renounce the contract and that the parties' escrow agreement was enforceable. Is the computer programming company entitled to recover damages for breach of the contract?


A. Yes, because the computer programming company had substantially performed.
B. Yes, because the program would save the department store $12,000 a year.
C. No, because shortening the processing time by one-half was an express condition subsequent.
D. No, because the department store's computer systems manager did not certify satisfactory completion of the programs.




in case you are wondering, correct answer is D

0


--
01/26/2014 4:11 AM
Author: Sara [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

Wow. didnt get up to that question, certainly would not have picked letter "D" for it.
What was the rationale behind it?

0


--
02/20/2019 3:57 PM
Author: sophiapetrillo94 [21813]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

D is correct. For this question, it is assumed that the contract was not renounced because of the time delay and that the escrow agreement was enforceable. The escrow agreement contained the express condition precedent that the work must be completed to the satisfaction of the department store's computer systems manager. Generally, failure to satisfy an express condition discharges performance. However, when the condition is one of personal satisfaction from one of the parties, and the contract involves personal judgment, the party whose satisfaction is required must act honestly and in good faith. Here, the programming company performance was not to the satisfaction of the store's computer systems manager, and the facts state that his refusal to certify satisfactory completion was done in good faith. Therefore, the programming company failed to meet a valid express condition precedent and the department store is excused from paying. Therefore, the programming company is not entitled to recover damages for breach of contract, as the department store did not breach.

A is incorrect. Substantial performance will not satisfy as contract performance where an express condition precedent has not been met.

B is incorrect. The call of the question asks if the computer programming company can recover damages for breach of contract, and there was no breach of contract by the department store. While the computer programming company would be entitled to some compensation, possibly $12,000, in a quasi-contract action under the theory of unjust enrichment, the question is asking about entitlement to damages based on breach of contract, not about restitution where a contract has been held unenforceable.

C is incorrect. The condition of shortening the processing time by one-half was waived when the parties made the escrow agreement and was replaced with the condition that the work is completed to the satisfaction of the department store's computer systems manager.



0


--
03/22/2019 1:45 PM
Author: BookwormBill [14]
  •  Quote
  •  Reply

I did the whole Adaptibar bank, it's something like 1800 old, and 620 new (OPE Exams and Study Aids).
In all, I did 3800 questions, so obviously I did some twice. I could swear this particular question appeared in three or four different versions with different answers. I can't prove it, but I think their self generated answers tweeks the released questions to generate new questions.

One criticism of Adaptibar is the answers are not always good. I found on occasion that I had to read all four answers to understand the question completely. On a very limited number of questions, I had to look up the answer. I should have reported those to the company. All in all, I was very successful in preparation, achieving a consistent 91-94% in the last two weeks. I didn't regard the answer issues as very substantive. You usually see right away why you made the mistake. The real break through came when I tweeked my time management during the final month to slow down in those convoluted Contracts/Property/CivPro questions. The Adaptibar analytics helped a lot with my timing. That proved to be a good thing because the actual test is MUCH harder than the released questions. First, the 60 equators are the hardest questions on the test, that's over one third, and those questions are never released. Second, it no doubt takes numbers of unscored pretest questions to validate the "discernment" of an equator, and that mean a higher percentage of the pretest questions are similarly hard. I'd guess half of them are hopeful equators. That means you waltz into the test with your happy 80% practice score on Adaptibar, Themis, or BarMax and WHAM! You encounter 72 super hard questions (60 equators and half the pretest questions). OMG that was a slap in the face. The only way I can figure to prepare for this is do the harder Barbri and Kaplan questions, but I'm open for suggestions.

Bottom line on the wacky Adaptibar questions: I do the OPE Exams for the law, I do the old released questions for the wrong answers, to study the tricks. I don't care about a 1% crappy answer rate, I usually can see exactly why I got the questions wrong, I'm an idiot who doesn't take the time to read. I kept making the same stupid mistakes over and over again until the last month when I just slowed down based on Adaptibar's indication of my average completion time. (It was two hours, so I adjusted to 2.5 hours with 30 minutes left and it all fell into place.)

0

Add Reply


Copyright by All4JDs.com