benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / On September 1, a manufacturer of portable drinking fountains mailed to a…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

On September 1, a manufacturer of portable drinking fountains mailed to a drinking fountain retailer a signed offer that stated: "Have 200 drinking fountains available at $100 each for October delivery. Be advised that this offer will remain open until October 1. "On September 30, the retailer mailed the following letter, which was received by the manufacturer on October 1: "Your offer is hereby accepted, but request delivery of 100 drinking fountains in October and 100 in November. "However, on September 29, the manufacturer sent a fax to the retailer revoking its offer, which was received the same day. This revocation is

choices

  1. valid, because the retailer had not changed its position in reliance on the September 1 offer.
  2. valid, because there was no consideration to support an option contract.
  3. not valid, because the retailer had 90 days in which to accept.
  4. not valid, because the manufacturer gave assurance that the offer would remain open until October 1.

subject

professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

Official source

initial import