[Anonymous]

Hello Everyone,

I am taking REG on July 8th (my first section!). I completed Becker self study and am now onto Wiley Test Bank to do endless multiple choice. However, the answer to one of the questions that I have encountered thus far is confusing me a little bit.

QUESTION:

Assuming all other requirements have been met, which of the following terms generally must be included in writing in order to satisfy the UCC Statute of Frauds regarding the sale of goods?

I. Price

II. Quantity.

III. Time of Payment.

ANSWER:

Price and Quantity.

I answered that only quantity is required as I seem to remember Mr. Olinto stressing that, and in flipping through R5 in Becker it reads that “contracts for sale of goods [falling under the Statute of Frauds] generally need only have a quantity term and a signature.” What is even more confusing is that the answer explanation in Wiley Test Bank says “In order to satisfy the UCC Statute of Frauds regarding the sale of goods, the quantity term must be included in the writing… Failure to include other terms of the contract, including price, will not result in an insufficient writing… The Code implies that the parties will in “good faith” determine a reasonable price.”

Can anyone help to clarify whether or not price is actually an essential term in the writing for a sale of goods falling under the Statute of Frauds?

Thank you very much!

[Anonymous]

Rather than making another thread, I have ran into another question in the Wiley Test Bank whose answer conflicts with Becker.

QUESTION:

Johns leased an apartment from Olsen. Shortly before the lease expired, Olsen threatened Johns with eviction and physical harm if Johns did not sign a new lease for twice the old rent. Johns, unable to afford the expense to fight eviction, and in fear of physical harm, signed the new lease. Three months later, Johns moved and sued to void the lease claiming duress. The lease will be held:

• Voidable because of Olsen’s threat of physical harm.

• Voidable because of Olsen’s threat to bring eviction proceedings.

• Void because of Johns’ financial condition.

• Void because of the unreasonable increase in rent.

ANSWER:

Voidable because of Olsen’s threat of physical harm.

Becker says that “if the harm threatened is physical force, the contract is void. If the harm threatened is economic or social, then the contract is voidable.” I answered that the contract was ‘Voidable because of Olsen’s threat to bring eviction proceedings', figuring that was the only correct statement of the four answer options – a threat of economic harm. Can anyone help to clarify whether or not duress involving a threat of physical force is void or voidable?

Thanks!

[smp73]

To answer your first question I believe that Wiley is wrong and it is just quantity that is needed. I remember thinking the same thing when I was studying. Also, I am pretty sure there was a long discussion here on A71 about that question. Stick with what you studied and chalk it up to a wrong test bank answer. Other REG takers do you agree?

As for your second question it is getting to the difference between ordinary and extreme duress. It could be another wrong answer in the test bank. I donot remember running across this one. Any one else have thoughts?

NYS CPA License # 113563
CIA: Done as of 2/15/14

Training for a half marathon post studying!

[SK Quddusi]

dis mite help…..

https://wileycpa.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/10715

AUD 75...Another
FAR 75...Seventy Five
BEC 75...Please!
REG 75...Hell Yeah! Done!

[Author]

Replies