benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / On March 1, a homeowner and a painter entered into a written contract wherein…

Problem

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

question

On March 1, a homeowner and a painter entered into a written contract wherein the painter promised to paint the exterior of the homeowner's house for 3,000.Priortothesigningofthecontract,thehomeownerandthepainterorallyagreedthattheircontractwouldbenullandvoidunlessthehomeownerwasabletoobtaina3,000. Prior to the signing of the contract, the homeowner and the painter orally agreed that their contract would be null and void unless the homeowner was able to obtain a 3,000 loan from National Bank before April 1. On March 31, the homeowner was informed by National Bank that his loan application had been rejected. The next day, the homeowner telephoned the painter and informed him that the deal was off. If the painter brings an action for breach of contract against the homeowner, would the latter's inability to secure the loan provide him with a valid defense?
Plain-text mathematical notation (without MathML)
On March 1, a homeowner and a painter entered into a written contract wherein the painter promised to paint the exterior of the homeowner's house for 3,000.Priortothesigningofthecontract,thehomeownerandthepainterorallyagreedthattheircontractwouldbenullandvoidunlessthehomeownerwasabletoobtaina3,000 loan from National Bank before April 1. On March 31, the homeowner was informed by National Bank that his loan application had been rejected. The next day, the homeowner telephoned the painter and informed him that the deal was off. If the painter brings an action for breach of contract against the homeowner, would the latter's inability to secure the loan provide him with a valid defense?
Original LaTeX notation
On March 1, a homeowner and a painter entered into a written contract wherein the painter promised to paint the exterior of the homeowner's house for $3,000. Prior to the signing of the contract, the homeowner and the painter orally agreed that their contract would be null and void unless the homeowner was able to obtain a $3,000 loan from National Bank before April 1. On March 31, the homeowner was informed by National Bank that his loan application had been rejected. The next day, the homeowner telephoned the painter and informed him that the deal was off. If the painter brings an action for breach of contract against the homeowner, would the latter's inability to secure the loan provide him with a valid defense?

choices

  1. No, because the homeowner is estopped to deny the validity of the written contract.
  2. No, because the agreement regarding the loan varied the express terms of the writing.
  3. Yes, because the agreement regarding the loan constituted a valid modification of the writing.
  4. Yes, because the loan agreement was a condition precedent to the existence of the contract.

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

task_id
1ce4a84e-f47c-5b4f-b0a8-94d70a22b6a1
task_key
all--test--1ce4a84e-f47c-5b4f-b0a8-94d70a22b6a1
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import