You do not need to write out the questions. However, you must write out your responses in complete sentences. Please be very thorough and detailed. This is your opportunity to "show-off" what you learned this week.

Chapter 12

• Question 12-5 Agreements That Lack Consideration. Arkansas-Missouri Forest Products, LLC (Ark-Mo), sells supplies to make wood pallets. Blue Chip Manufacturing (BCM) makes pallets. Mark Garnett, an owner of Ark-Mo, and Stuart Lerner, an owner of BCM, went into business together. Garnett and Lerner agreed that Ark-Mo would have a 30-percent owner-ship interest in their future projects. When Lerner formed Blue Chip Recycling, LLC (BCR), to manage a pallet repair facility in California, however, he allocated only a 5-percent interest to Ark-Mo. Garnett objected. In a Telephone Deal, Lerner then promised Garnett that Ark-Mo would receive a 30-percent interest in their future projects in the Midwest, and Garnett agreed to forgo an ownership interest in BCR. But when Blue Chip III, LLC (BC III), was formed to operate a repair facility in the Midwest, Lerner told Garnett that he was not getting anything. Ark-Mo filed a suit in a Missouri state court against Lerner, alleging breach of contract. Was there consideration to support the Telephone Deal? Explain. [Arkansas-Missouri Forest Products, LLC v. Lerner, 486 S.W.3d 438 (Mo.App.E.D. 2016)] (See Consideration

• Chapter 13:
  • Question 13-1 Conditions of Performance. The Caplans con-tract with Faithful Construction, Inc., to build a house for them for $360,000. The specifications state all plumbing bowls and fixtures . . . to be Crane brand. The Caplans leave on vacation, and during their absence, Faithful is unable to buy and install Crane plumbing fixtures. Instead, Faithful installs Kohler brand fixtures, an equivalent in the industry. On completion of the building contract, the Caplans inspect the work, discover the substitution, and refuse to accept the house, claiming Faithful has breached the conditions set forth in the specifications. Discuss fully the Caplans claim. (See Performance and Discharge.)
  • Question 13-8 Reformation. Dr. John Holm signed a two-year employment agreement with Gateway Anesthesia Associates, PLLC. During negotiations for the agreement, Gateways president, Dr. Jon Nottingham, told Holm that on completion of the contract he would become a partner in the firm and that during the term he would be paid like a partner. The written agreement did not reflect this promisethe con-tract read that Holm would be paid based on net collections for his services and did not state that he would become a partner. Later, Gateway told Holm that it did not intend to make him a partner. Holm filed a complaint in an Arizona state court against Gateway, alleging breach. Before the trial, Holm filed a motion to reform the contract to express what he had been told. Nottingham did not dispute Holms account. What is the basis for the reformation of a contract? Is it appropriate in this case? Why or why not? [Holm v. Gateway Anesthesia Associates, PLLC, 2018 WL 770503 (Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2018)] (See Equitable Remedies for Contract Breach.)
• Chapter 14:
  • Question 14-4 Express Warranties. Charity Bell bought a used Toyota Avalon from Awny Gobran of Gobran Auto Sales, Inc. The odometer showed that the car had been driven 147,000 miles. Bell asked whether it had been in any accidents. Gobran replied that it was in good condition. The parties signed a warranty disclaimer that the vehicle was sold as is. Problems with the car arose the same day as the purchase. Gobran made a few ineffectual attempts to repair it before refusing to do more. Meanwhile, Bell obtained a vehicle history report from Carfax, which showed that the Avalon had been damaged in an accident and that its last reported odometer reading was 237,271. Was the as is disclaimer sufficient to put Bell on notice that the odometer reading could be false and that the car might have been in an accident? Can Gobran avoid any liability that might otherwise be imposed because Bell did not obtain the Carfax report until after she bought the car? Discuss. [Gobran Auto Sales, Inc. v. Bell, 335 Ga.App. 873, 783 S.E.2d 389 (2016)] (See Warranties.)
  • Question 14-8 Implied Warranties. Harold Moore bought a barrel-racing horse named Clear Boggy for $100,000 for his daughter. The seller was Betty Roper, who appraises barrel-racing horses. (Barrel racing is a rodeo event in which a horse and rider attempt to complete a cloverleaf pattern around preset barrels in the fastest time.) Clear Boggy was promoted for sale as a competitive barrel-racing horse. On inquiry, Roper represented that Clear Boggy did not have any performance issues or medical problems, and that the only medications the horse had been given were hock injections, a common treatment.Shortly after the purchase, Clear Boggy began exhibiting significant performance problems, including nervousness, unwillingness to practice, and stalling during runs. Roper then disclosed that the horse had been given shoulder injections prior to the sale and had previously stalled in competition. Moore took the horse to a veterinarian and discovered that it suffered from arthritis, impinged vertebrae, front-left-foot problems, and a right-hind-leg fracture. The vet recommended, and Moore paid for, surgery to repair the leg fracture, but Clear Boggy remained unfit for competition. Moore also discovered that the horse had been scratched from a com-petition prior to the sale because it was injured. Can Moore prevail in a lawsuit against Roper for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose? Why or why not? [Moore v. Roper, 2018 WL 1123868 (E.D.Okla. 2018)] (S
• Chapter 23:
  • Question 23-3 Business Case Problem with Sample AnswerAgency Powers. A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Many scientists believe that the two trends are related, because when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it produces a greenhouse effect, trapping solar heat. Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is authorized to regulate any air pollutants emitted into . . . the ambient air that in its judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution. A group of private organizations asked the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles. The EPA refused, stating, among other things, that the most recent congressional amendments to the CAA did not authorize any new, binding auto emissions limits. Nineteen states, including Massachusetts, asked a district court to review the EPAs denial. Did the EPA have the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles? If so, was its stated reason for refusing to do so consistent with that authority? Discuss. [Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497, 127 S. Ct. 1438, 167 L.Ed.2d 248 (2007)] (See Agency

References Included: