SOLVED

[Wedding flowers] Serena planned a backyard wedding for her daughter, Naomi, and contacted Flo’s Flowers. Flo and Serena discussed terms for Naomi’s wedding, including purple flowers, delivery at 3:00 p.m., and a total cost of $2,000. Flo e-mailed Serena a ten-page pre-printed contract in tiny print, which Serena thought was very long and confusing, but Flo had the best flowers in town. Serena glanced at the contract and noticed the price of “Three Thousand Dollars,” which was not what they agreed. She typed a line through it and typed “$2K” in the margin along with her initials. Since she did not see anything about flower color, she added on the last page “As discussed, please provide purple flowers.” She also noticed the delivery time was 5:00 p.m. Since they had agreed on 3:00 p.m., she changed that item, and then typed her name at the bottom of the contract and e-mailed it back to Flo. When the big day came two months later, Flo’s delivery truck did not arrive until 5:00 p.m., and brought pink flower arrangements. The delivery workers gave Serena an invoice for $3,000 and demanded payment. Serena was livid and demanded they provide purple flowers, as agreed. Unfortunately, they had no flowers left in the delivery truck and the store was closed. Guests were arriving and Serena had no choice but to use the pink flowers. She begrudgingly handed over a check for $2,000. The following day, Flo called demanding payment of the remaining one thousand dollars. Serena told her she would not pay because the flowers were pink, the price was wrong, and they arrived late. Flo referred Serena to Section 29 of the contract which states, “Pigment may be redesigned at any time.” 76) Flo claims that pink was proper under Section 29, and any court would interpret the contract in Flo’s favor. Would Section 29 likely be enforced? A) Yes, Serena should have read the contract more carefully and, if there were any ambiguity, she should have clarified it prior to signing. B) Yes, Section 29 should be interpreted according to its plain language. C) Yes, Section 29 is ambiguous and should be interpreted against Serena. D) No, Section 29 is ambiguous and should be interpreted against Flo. E) Yes, Serena signed the contract. 77) Flo claims that “pigment redesign” in Section 29 is regularly used in the flower business, and that she had every right to “redesign” the color of the arrangements because she is a professional in the business. On which general guideline of contract interpretation is Flo relying? A) Section 29 is quoting a federal law that allows professionals in the flower business to select color. B) The four corners rule. C) The plain language rule. D) The technical exemption law of the UCC. E) General guidelines of contract interpretation. 78) Serena claims the contract is not valid because she only typed her name onto an electronic form and she did not “sign” any contract. Is she correct? A) No, because e-contracts are legally valid. B) Yes. Since she paid the down payment, the contract was executory and e-contracts that are executory are void. C) Yes, to be valid, she needed to print the form, sign in, and send it in. D) No, an e-contract is voidable where there is no consideration. E) Yes, although an e-contract is valid, it is voidable. 79) Serena claims Flo breached the contract by arriving at 5:00 p.m., rather than 3:00. Is she correct? A) No, although Serena could change the terms of the contract, she could not do so via e-mail. B) No, because Serena could not change the terms of the contract. C) Yes, because where there is conflict between preprinted and handwritten terms, the handwritten ones prevail. D) No, because where there is a conflict between preprinted and handwritten terms, the preprinted ones prevail unless ambiguous. E) Yes, but only if the contract provision is ambiguous. 80) Serena tells Flo that any judge would find that the contract calls for purple flowers, and that Flo breached the contract by providing pink flowers instead of purple. Is she correct? A) No, because where there is a conflict between preprinted and handwritten terms, the preprinted ones prevail unless ambiguous. B) No, because Serena could not change the terms of the contract. C) Yes, but only because more specific provisions take precedence over general ones in a contract. D) Yes, because a judge should interpret a contract so as to give effect to the parties’ intentions at the time they entered into the contract, and there is evidence that they discussed and intended to have purple flowers. E) No, because the technical terms of Section 29 take precedence. Â Â