Reliance, restitution, and UCC remedies — MCQs

A homeowner hired a contractor for $120,000 to renovate a kitchen and dining room. The agreement allocated $90,000 to demolition, carpentry, plumbing, electrical work, and installation, and $30,000 to cabinets, appliances, and windows supplied by the contractor. It required Brand X windows. The contractor completed the renovation on time but inadvertently installed another brand with the same appearance, energy rating, and market value. Replacing those windows with Brand X would require substantial demolition and cost $28,000. The homeowner began using the renovated rooms but withheld the final $30,000 payment solely because of the window substitution. The contractor's remaining work is otherwise complete, and the substitution caused no reduction in the property's value. It is undisputed that the agreement is governed by common law because the contract's predominant purpose was the provision of renovation services. The contractor asks how any deduction from the withheld payment should be measured. Which of the following is the most appropriate advice?

A bakery chain asked a supplier to design, deliver, and install 15 commercial convection ovens for a new production facility. The supplier would select ovens from its standard catalog, calibrate the temperature controls to match the facility's electrical specifications, deliver the ovens, secure them to a ventilation system, and provide one day of staff training on operation and maintenance. The written proposal set a single price of $310,000. Comparable ovens sold without calibration and training would cost $275,000. Calibration and training would take approximately three days. After the bakery accepted the proposal, a dispute arose over whether the supplier's confirmation added an enforceable disclaimer of implied warranties. The forum applies the predominant-purpose test to mixed transactions. Which of the following best states the law governing the agreement?

A restaurant hired a company to design and install a custom kitchen system for $180,000. The written agreement allocated $125,000 to ovens, refrigerators, and ventilation equipment and $55,000 to design, installation, and employee training. The predominant purpose of the transaction was the sale of the equipment—the services were incidental to that sale. The agreement required the company to ship the equipment to the restaurant via an independent common carrier and did not require the company to deliver the equipment to any particular destination. While the equipment was in transit, it was damaged without fault of either party. The restaurant refused to pay for the equipment, arguing that the company still bore the risk of loss because installation had not yet occurred. Which of the following is the strongest conclusion regarding risk of loss?

A printing company contracted with a supplier for a customized industrial printing press. The agreement allocated $250,000 to the movable press, $150,000 to calibration, and $20,000 to employee training. The supplier ordinarily sells printing presses but offers calibration to ensure proper operation. The agreement describes the press by model and quantity and states that ownership will transfer upon delivery. Calibration will take approximately four days. After the press was delivered but before calibration, a dispute arose about whether the supplier's proposed cure of a defective feed roller was timely. The parties' jurisdiction follows the predominant-purpose approach for mixed transactions. Which of the following best states the law governing the agreement?