Novell, Inc., owned the source code for DR DOS, a computer operating system that Microsoft Corp. targeted with allegedly anticompetitive practices in the early $1990$s$.$ Novell worried that if it filed a suit, Microsoft would retaliate with further alleged unfair practices. Consequently, Novell sold DR DOS to Canopy Group, Inc., a Utah corporation. The purposes of the sale were to obligate Canopy to bring an action against Microsoft and to allow Novell to share in the recovery without revealing its role. Novell and Canopy signed two documents$-$a contract of sale, obligating Canopy to pay $$400,000$ for rights to the source code, and a temporary license, obligating Canopy to pay at least $$600,000$ in royalties, which included a percentage of any recovery from the suit. Canopy settled the dispute with Microsoft, deducted its expenses, and paid Novell its percentage. Novell filed a suit in a Utah state court against Canopy, alleging breach of contract for Canopy's deduction of expenses. Canopy responded that it could show that the parties had an oral agreement on this point. Explain. $[$Novell$,$ Inc. v$.$ Canopy Group, Inc., $2004$ UT App $162,92$ P$\mathrm{.}3$d $768(2004)]$

QUESTION $1$

$1.$ This case will be brought in $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_$ court.

A$.$ Civil

B$.$ criminal

QUESTION $2$

$1.$ The plaintiff$($s$)$ in this case is$/$are $\_\_\_($Novell$,$ Inc.$/$ Canopy Group, Inc.$/$ Microsoft$/$ State of Utah$)$ and the defendant$($s$)$ is$/$are $\_\_\_\_\_\_($Novell Inc.$/$ Canopy Group, Inc.$/$ Microsoft$/$ State of Utah$).$

QUESTION $3$

$1.$ The plaintiff's cause of action is for $\_\_\_\_($fraud$/$ breach of contract$/$ equitable$/$ legal$)$ and it is seeking a$($n$)\_\_\_\_\_($fraud $/$breach of contract $/$equitable$/$ legal$)$ remedy of money.

QUESTION $4$

$1.$ Novell owned a computer operating system and was a competitor of $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_($Apple$/$ Microsoft$/$ Canopy$/$ DR DOS$/$ was$/$ was not$/$ Novell$).$

Novell wanted to sue Microsoft for anticompetitive practices but was worried that Microsoft would retaliate. Therefore, Novell decided to sell its system to $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_($Apple$/$ Microsoft$/$ Canopy$/$ DR DOS$/$ was$/$ was not$/$ Novell$),$

on the condition that the new owner would sue Microsoft and then split the money from the lawsuit win with Novell. The promise to bring a lawsuit and then split the recovery $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_($Apple$/$ Microsoft$/$ Canopy$/$ DR DOS$/$ was$/$ was not$/$ Novell$)$ part of written contracts between the parties.

The lawsuit with Microsoft was brought and settled and $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_($Apple$/$ Microsoft$/$ Canopy$/$ DR DOS$/$ was$/$ was not$/$ Novell$)$ deducted its expenses connected with bringing the lawsuit $($ex$.$ attorneys' fees, court costs$)$ and then split the rest with Novell.

QUESTION $5$

$1.$ Novell's main argument was that Canopy had no right to $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_($keep any of the recovery$/$ deduct its expenses from the recovery$/$ sue Microsoft in the first place$/$ sue in a Utah state court$/$ Canopy was not from Utah$/$ there was no mention of this in the written agreement$/$ Federal court had mandatory jurisdiction$/$ the source code was invented by Novell$)$

Because $\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_($keep any of the recovery$/$ deduct its expenses from the recovery$/$ sue Microsoft in the first place$/$ sue in a Utah state court$/$ Canopy was not from Utah$/$ there was no mention of this in the written agreement$/$ Federal court had mandatory jurisdiction$/$ the source code was invented by Novell.$)$

QUESTION $6$

$1.$ Novell's best argument to convince the judge that Canopy was not allowed to deduct expenses is the $\_\_\_\_\_\_($Statute of Frauds$/$ Parol Evidence Rule$/$ Click$-$on agreement rule$/$ there were two contracts instead of one$/$ Canopy has more money than Novell$/$ the agreemnet to deduct expenses was oral$)$ since $\_\_\_\_\_\_($Statute of Frauds$/$ Parol Evidence Rule$/$ Click$-$on agreement rule$/$ there were two contracts instead of one$/$ Canopy has more money than Novell$/$ the agreemnet to deduct expenses was oral.$)$

QUESTION $7$

$1.$ In order to avoid this predicament, Canopy should have $\_\_\_\_\_\_.$

a$.$ never sold the operating system in the first place

b$.$ included the deduction of expenses clause in the written agreement

c$.$ sold the operating system to Microsoft

d$.$ made Canopy swear to bring the lawsuit

QUESTION $8$

$1.$ The Statute of Frauds requires that a contract be signed by all of the parties to the contract in order for it to be enforceable.

True

False

QUESTION $9$

$1.$ A prenuptial agreement in which a wife agrees to a predetermined amount of alimony money in the event of a divorce must be in writing in order to be enforceable.

True

False

QUESTION $10$

$1.$ An e$-$contract is not enforceable unless the parties also sign a contract in a face$-$to$-$face interaction.

True

False