How to Ace FYLSE/October 2002 Exam

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Fact Summary[edit]

Q1 Window Frame Contract[edit]

S saw W's ad and mailed an order for 30 window frames, at $100 for total $3,000. The order asked for guarantee of performance within 15 days of the other deadlines. W sent S an Acknowledgement of Order listing the windows and price as in S's order and included $200 shipping charge, which is customarily borne by the buyer. At the bottom of the Acknowledgement it was printed that "Installation guaranteed within 60 days," and "All warranties of merchantability and fitness are expressly disclaimed." W installed windows 55 days after the order was placed and S suffered delay-related expenses. W later submitted a bill for the full amount on the Acknowledgement. S refused to pay the $200 charges. S also discovered that the windows had a manufacturing defect. W sued S for the full price on the Acknowledgement and S countersued for damages from the delay and defects of the windows.


merchant governing law mutual assent offer-advertisement acceptance new terms between merchants time is of the essence consideration promissory estoppel Defenses to formation SoF merchant's confirming memo divisible contract expectation damage consequential damage breach of implied warranties

Q3 Photography Contract[edit]

J, an owner of a health spa hired D, a photographer to shoot promotional photos. J wanted to shoot before and after pictures of himself losing weight and D agreed to do so at the price of $1,000. When D came to the spa to shoot, she found that it was for nudist and felt uncomfortable, D shot the photo anyway. Next day D sent J the five b1efore pictures and requested immediate payment of $500. D told J that the five after pictures would be taken by her assistant not her.


Formation- mutual assent
SoF- $500 rule, 1 year rule, Mistake, Detrimental Reliance, Modification
Delegation of Duty
personal service
Express v. constructive condition
divisible contract
quasi-contract recovery



Fact Summary[edit]

A zoo employee caused an explosion which let a zebra escape and hurt a child.


Strict liability-wild animal

assumption of risk
contributory negligence
comparative negligence


plaintiff- Cardozo and Andrews
Vicarious liability(Respondeat Superior)

Criminal Law[edit]

Fact Summary[edit]

At a busy city street, V approached D who was insane. Due to the insanity, D believed V was about to kill him so D fired a gun intending to wound V to prevent attack. However, the bullet ricocheted and killed V.


Q.2 Insane Gunman[edit]

State v. D

  • Aggravated Assault
  • Aggravated Battery
  • Murder
  • Voluntary Manslaughter
  • Involuntary Manslaughter
  • Self-defense
  • Insanity
M'Naughten Test
MPC Test
Durham Test
Irresistible Impulse Test
Diminished Capacity