benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace
MMLU / A gambler learned that a friend of his was planning a vacation to visit some…
Problem
Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.
question
A gambler learned that a friend of his was planning a vacation to visit some casinos. The gambler, who was an avid college football fan, approached his friend. The gambler explained that he wanted to place a bet with a sports-betting agency that his beloved team would win the college football championship the next year. The gambler further explained that he had read that the odds of his team winning the football championship next year were listed as 100-1, and he wanted to place a
$1,000 bet on his team. The gambler told his friend that he would pay him for his efforts. After further discussion, the gambler wrote up the following agreement:"I hereby promise to pay my friend $100 if he will place a 100 within 30 days after the bet is placed. "Since the gambler knew his wife would be angry if she found out about the bet, the gambler included a clause that the friend promised not to tell anyone about the bet. After both the gambler and his friend signed the agreement, the gambler gave him 1,000 to place the bet and $100 as the initial payment for the friend's efforts. The friend then went on vacation. Shortly after arrival, the friend attempted to place the bet for the gambler. However, the friend discovered that the gambler's lucky casino had recently closed its sports book. The friend then entered another casino next door and discovered that they had a sports book, also offering 100-1 odds on the gambler's favorite team winning the college football championship the next year. The friend placed the bet with the other casino's sports book. After returning from his vacation, the friend gave the betting slip to the gambler. Nothing more was said until 30 days later, when the friend asked the gambler when he was going to receive the final $100. The gambler then refused to pay anything more to the friend. In a breach of contract action by the friend to collect the $100, which of the following, if true, is the gambler's best defense?Plain-text mathematical notation (without MathML)
A gambler learned that a friend of his was planning a vacation to visit some casinos. The gambler, who was an avid college football fan, approached his friend. The gambler explained that he wanted to place a bet with a sports-betting agency that his beloved team would win the college football championship the next year. The gambler further explained that he had read that the odds of his team winning the football championship next year were listed as 100-1, and he wanted to place a $1,000 bet on his team. The gambler told his friend that he would pay him for his efforts. After further discussion, the gambler wrote up the following agreement:"I hereby promise to pay my friend $100 if he will place a 1,000betformethatmyfavoriteteamwillwinthecollegefootballchampionshipnextyear.Thebetistobeplacedatmyluckycasinosportsbook.Ifurtherpromisetopaymyfriendanadditional100 within 30 days after the bet is placed. "Since the gambler knew his wife would be angry if she found out about the bet, the gambler included a clause that the friend promised not to tell anyone about the bet. After both the gambler and his friend signed the agreement, the gambler gave him 1,100,representing1,000 to place the bet and $100 as the initial payment for the friend's efforts. The friend then went on vacation. Shortly after arrival, the friend attempted to place the bet for the gambler. However, the friend discovered that the gambler's lucky casino had recently closed its sports book. The friend then entered another casino next door and discovered that they had a sports book, also offering 100-1 odds on the gambler's favorite team winning the college football championship the next year. The friend placed the bet with the other casino's sports book. After returning from his vacation, the friend gave the betting slip to the gambler. Nothing more was said until 30 days later, when the friend asked the gambler when he was going to receive the final $100. The gambler then refused to pay anything more to the friend. In a breach of contract action by the friend to collect the $100, which of the following, if true, is the gambler's best defense?
Original LaTeX notation
A gambler learned that a friend of his was planning a vacation to visit some casinos. The gambler, who was an avid college football fan, approached his friend. The gambler explained that he wanted to place a bet with a sports-betting agency that his beloved team would win the college football championship the next year. The gambler further explained that he had read that the odds of his team winning the football championship next year were listed as 100-1, and he wanted to place a $1,000 bet on his team. The gambler told his friend that he would pay him for his efforts. After further discussion, the gambler wrote up the following agreement:"I hereby promise to pay my friend $100 if he will place a $1,000 bet for me that my favorite team will win the college football championship next year. The bet is to be placed at my lucky casino sports book. I further promise to pay my friend an additional $100 within 30 days after the bet is placed. "Since the gambler knew his wife would be angry if she found out about the bet, the gambler included a clause that the friend promised not to tell anyone about the bet. After both the gambler and his friend signed the agreement, the gambler gave him $1,100, representing $1,000 to place the bet and $100 as the initial payment for the friend's efforts. The friend then went on vacation. Shortly after arrival, the friend attempted to place the bet for the gambler. However, the friend discovered that the gambler's lucky casino had recently closed its sports book. The friend then entered another casino next door and discovered that they had a sports book, also offering 100-1 odds on the gambler's favorite team winning the college football championship the next year. The friend placed the bet with the other casino's sports book. After returning from his vacation, the friend gave the betting slip to the gambler. Nothing more was said until 30 days later, when the friend asked the gambler when he was going to receive the final $100. The gambler then refused to pay anything more to the friend. In a breach of contract action by the friend to collect the $100, which of the following, if true, is the gambler's best defense?
choices
- The contract was void ab initio, because the contract could not be performed in its entirety within the span of one year.
- The friend's placing the $1,000 bet at the other casino instead of at the gambler's lucky casino constituted a material breach of contract, thereby relieving the gambler of any further contractual obligations under the terms of their agreement.
- While on vacation, the friend told his girlfriend about the $1,000 that he bet on the gambler's behalf.
- Since the gambler's lucky casino no longer had a sports book at which to place the bet, all contractual obligations would be suspended under the doctrine of frustration of purpose.
subject
professional_law
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
initial import