benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A mushroom farmer agreed in a signed writing on January 2 to deliver to a chef…

Problem

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

question

A mushroom farmer agreed in a signed writing on January 2 to deliver to a chef at a local restaurant on March 1 a specified quantity of mushrooms at a specified price. The mushrooms on the farmer's farm were usually picked and packaged by the farmer's three sons. On February 27, two of the Sons were injured in a fanning accident and hospitalized. As a result, the farmer encountered a manpower shortage and could not process all of the mushrooms for the chef's order. On February 28, the farmer telephoned the chef and said, "Because my two sons were injured yesterday, I won't be able to deliver your mushrooms on March 1. However, I am trying to hire some other farm hands to help process your order. Although I can't promise it, I should be able to deliver the mushrooms by the end of the week. " The chef, who knew that the fanner's sons were responsible for the mushroom farming, said, "No problem. I think I'll be able to get by without them for a few days. However, be advised that I will hold you liable for any loss I sustain as a result of your failure to deliver the mushrooms on March 1 . " When the chef failed to receive the mushrooms on March 5, he sent the following fax to the fanner:"I must have the mushrooms no later than March 9. " This fax was received and read by the farmer on the same day. If the fanner delivers the mushrooms to the chef on March 9 and the chef accepts them, can the chef successfully maintain a contract action against the farmer to recover damages resulting from the delay in delivery?

choices

  1. No, because temporary impracticability excused his duty to deliver the mushrooms on March 1.
  2. No, because the buyer's statements and acceptance of the mushrooms constituted a waiver of the condition of timely delivery.
  3. Yes, because his statements to the farmer did not constitute a promise to forgo any cause of action he then had or might later acquire.
  4. Yes, because there was no consideration to support his waiver, if any, of timely delivery.

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
7c9a4bc2-9a1c-5387-a4c5-c7715ef8f31a
task_key
all--test--7c9a4bc2-9a1c-5387-a4c5-c7715ef8f31a
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import