benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A 25-year-old concert pianist lived in a small studio apartment in a city. The…

Problem

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

question

A 25-year-old concert pianist lived in a small studio apartment in a city. The pianist could not keep a piano in her apartment because of its small dimensions. In order to practice each day, she had to travel to a school of performing arts to use its musical facilities. Finally, the pianist decided to move out of her apartment and buy a more spacious home, where she could have her own piano. As she was house hunting, the pianist found a quaint home in the county that she wanted. She put a bid down on the home with the seller's broker. She was informed that the owner was in Europe on a business trip and would not be entertaining any offers until he returned. While she was awaiting word on the county property, the pianist's friend orally agreed to sell his piano to her for $8,000. The pianist explained that she wanted the piano only if she should succeed in her efforts to buy the county home. For this reason, the parties agreed that the piano sale would not take effect unless the pianist bought the county home. The next day, the parties reduced their oral agreement to a signed writing, but did not include in the writing any mention that the sale would not take effect unless the pianist bought the county home. Two weeks later, the owner of the county property returned from a trip and rejected the pianist's offer. The friend now brings an action against the pianist for breach of contract to buy the piano. How should the court rule on the pianist's offer to prove, over the friend's objection, that she has not been able to buy the county home?

choices

  1. The evidence is admissible, to show that the written agreement did not become a contract.
  2. The evidence is admissible, to show frustration of the purpose of the contract.
  3. The evidence is barred, because the oral agreement is within the statute of frauds.
  4. The evidence is barred, because the oral agreement would contradict the written agreement, which is unconditional on its face.

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
ae47ee4f-561b-583f-844f-77bb8d797b82
task_key
all--test--ae47ee4f-561b-583f-844f-77bb8d797b82
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import