LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B
LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B NEWEST 2025 COMPLETE
100 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS (VERIFIED ANSWERS)
|ALREADY GRADED A+||BRAND NEW!!
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What is the difference between assigning a
contract right and delegating a contract obligation? - ANSWER-Assigning a contract right
transfers the right to performance to a third party, extinguishing the original party's right.
Delegating a contract obligation means transferring the duty to perform, but the original party
still remains liable if the obligation is not fulfilled.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What happens to the original party's right
when they assign it to a third party? - ANSWER-The original party's right is extinguished; then
no longer retain any claim to performance under that right.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: When a person delegates a contractual
obligation to someone else, do they remain responsible? - ANSWER-Yes, the delegator remains
responsible for the obligation even after it has been delegated.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: Who is Mr. Winters in this case, what is his
role? - ANSWER-He is a roofing contractor who installed a roof and later delegated the repair
obligation to a third party.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What happened as a result of the third party's
repair work on the roof? - ANSWER-The third party used a blowtorch and accidentally burned
down the house, resulting in a nearly $90,000 insurance claim.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What was Mr. Winters' defense against the
insurance company's claim? - ANSWER-He argued that he was not responsible because he had
delegated the repair obligation to a third party.
1|Page
, LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What did the court decide regarding Mr.
Winters' liability? - ANSWER-The court ruled that Mr. Winters remained liable as the original
obligor because delegating an obligation does not remove the original party's responsibility.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: Who else is liable for the damages caused by
the roof fire? - ANSWER-Both Mr. Winters and the third-party delegatee who performed the
repair work are liable.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: How much money did the mother lend to her daughter
and son-in-law to buy a house? - ANSWER-She lent them $100,000, of which $50,000 remained
unpaid at the time of their divorce.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What agreement did Stewart enter into during the
divorce? - ANSWER-He entered into a marital property settlement contract, which included the
obligation to repay the mother-in-law $50,000 from the net proceeds if he sold the house.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What was supposed to happen if the proceeds from the
sale of the house were not enough to pay back the loan? - ANSWER-Stewart agreed to assume
responsibility for the remaining balance of the loan to the mother-in-law.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What actually happened after Steward sold the house? -
ANSWER-He received only $6,000 in net proceeds and did not pay any of it to the mother-in-
law.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What legal action did the mother-in-law take after not
being paid? - ANSWER-She filed a lawsuit against William Stewart to enforce the repayment
obligation.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What was William's defense in the lawsuit? - ANSWER-He
claimed that the mother-in-law was merely an incidental third-party beneficiary and therefore
had no right to enforce the contract.
2|Page
, LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What is the difference between an incidental and an
intended third-party beneficiary? - ANSWER-An incidental beneficiary benefits from a contract
unintentionally and cannot enforce it, while an intended beneficiary is expressly entitled to
benefit and can enforce the contract.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: How did the court classify the mother-in-law in this case?
- ANSWER-The court found that she was an intended creditor beneficiary, meaning the parties
to the contract intended to benefit her by fulfilling an obligation owed to her.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What was the outcome of the case? - ANSWER-The
mother-in-law was allowed to enforce the contract and pursue repayment of the $50,000
because she was an intended creditor beneficiary.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What kind of contract did Mike
want when he joined the software company? - ANSWER-Mike wanted a two year term
employment contract.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What condition did the
company include in Mike's employment contract? - ANSWER-The company included an express
condition that if they became dissatisfied with Mike's performance, it would be a condition
subsequent that would discharge their obligation to continue employing him.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What happened when the
company became dissatisfied with Mike's performance? - ANSWER-They terminated his
employment based on the satisfaction clause in the contract.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What was the legal issue that
arose from Mike's termination? - ANSWER-The issue was whether a subjective standard or an
objective standard should be used to evaluate the employer's dissatisfaction under the
satisfaction clause.
3|Page
, LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What standard did the court
apply in this case? - ANSWER-The court applied a subjective standard because the case involved
a non-employment relationship where the employer's personal satisfaction with performance
was relevant.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What was the court's decision
regarding the enforcement of the satisfaction clause? - ANSWER-The court held that the
satisfaction clause was enforceable under the subjective standard, and the company was
justified in terminating Mike based on their dissatisfaction.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: When is an objective standard
typically applied to satisfaction clauses? - ANSWER-An objective standard is typically applied
when the contract specifically states so or when the contract involves measurable criteria like
technical fitness or utility.
The obligation to perform to a party. - ANSWER-delegation transfers
Voluntary transfer to a third party of the rights arising from a contract so that the assignor's
rights to performance are extinguished. - ANSWER-assignment of rights
Party making an assignment; handing off the contractual rights. - ANSWER-assignor
Party to whom contract rights are assigned. - ANSWER-assignee
The party owing a duty to the assignor under the original contract, the person who must
perform. - ANSWER-obligor
The party to whom a duty of performance is owed under a contract. - ANSWER-obligee
4|Page
LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B NEWEST 2025 COMPLETE
100 QUESTIONS AND CORRECT ANSWERS (VERIFIED ANSWERS)
|ALREADY GRADED A+||BRAND NEW!!
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What is the difference between assigning a
contract right and delegating a contract obligation? - ANSWER-Assigning a contract right
transfers the right to performance to a third party, extinguishing the original party's right.
Delegating a contract obligation means transferring the duty to perform, but the original party
still remains liable if the obligation is not fulfilled.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What happens to the original party's right
when they assign it to a third party? - ANSWER-The original party's right is extinguished; then
no longer retain any claim to performance under that right.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: When a person delegates a contractual
obligation to someone else, do they remain responsible? - ANSWER-Yes, the delegator remains
responsible for the obligation even after it has been delegated.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: Who is Mr. Winters in this case, what is his
role? - ANSWER-He is a roofing contractor who installed a roof and later delegated the repair
obligation to a third party.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What happened as a result of the third party's
repair work on the roof? - ANSWER-The third party used a blowtorch and accidentally burned
down the house, resulting in a nearly $90,000 insurance claim.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What was Mr. Winters' defense against the
insurance company's claim? - ANSWER-He argued that he was not responsible because he had
delegated the repair obligation to a third party.
1|Page
, LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: What did the court decide regarding Mr.
Winters' liability? - ANSWER-The court ruled that Mr. Winters remained liable as the original
obligor because delegating an obligation does not remove the original party's responsibility.
Delegation of Duties: Federal Ins. Co. v. Winters: Who else is liable for the damages caused by
the roof fire? - ANSWER-Both Mr. Winters and the third-party delegatee who performed the
repair work are liable.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: How much money did the mother lend to her daughter
and son-in-law to buy a house? - ANSWER-She lent them $100,000, of which $50,000 remained
unpaid at the time of their divorce.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What agreement did Stewart enter into during the
divorce? - ANSWER-He entered into a marital property settlement contract, which included the
obligation to repay the mother-in-law $50,000 from the net proceeds if he sold the house.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What was supposed to happen if the proceeds from the
sale of the house were not enough to pay back the loan? - ANSWER-Stewart agreed to assume
responsibility for the remaining balance of the loan to the mother-in-law.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What actually happened after Steward sold the house? -
ANSWER-He received only $6,000 in net proceeds and did not pay any of it to the mother-in-
law.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What legal action did the mother-in-law take after not
being paid? - ANSWER-She filed a lawsuit against William Stewart to enforce the repayment
obligation.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What was William's defense in the lawsuit? - ANSWER-He
claimed that the mother-in-law was merely an incidental third-party beneficiary and therefore
had no right to enforce the contract.
2|Page
, LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What is the difference between an incidental and an
intended third-party beneficiary? - ANSWER-An incidental beneficiary benefits from a contract
unintentionally and cannot enforce it, while an intended beneficiary is expressly entitled to
benefit and can enforce the contract.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: How did the court classify the mother-in-law in this case?
- ANSWER-The court found that she was an intended creditor beneficiary, meaning the parties
to the contract intended to benefit her by fulfilling an obligation owed to her.
Intended Beneficiary: Stine v. Stewart: What was the outcome of the case? - ANSWER-The
mother-in-law was allowed to enforce the contract and pursue repayment of the $50,000
because she was an intended creditor beneficiary.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What kind of contract did Mike
want when he joined the software company? - ANSWER-Mike wanted a two year term
employment contract.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What condition did the
company include in Mike's employment contract? - ANSWER-The company included an express
condition that if they became dissatisfied with Mike's performance, it would be a condition
subsequent that would discharge their obligation to continue employing him.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What happened when the
company became dissatisfied with Mike's performance? - ANSWER-They terminated his
employment based on the satisfaction clause in the contract.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What was the legal issue that
arose from Mike's termination? - ANSWER-The issue was whether a subjective standard or an
objective standard should be used to evaluate the employer's dissatisfaction under the
satisfaction clause.
3|Page
, LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What standard did the court
apply in this case? - ANSWER-The court applied a subjective standard because the case involved
a non-employment relationship where the employer's personal satisfaction with performance
was relevant.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: What was the court's decision
regarding the enforcement of the satisfaction clause? - ANSWER-The court held that the
satisfaction clause was enforceable under the subjective standard, and the company was
justified in terminating Mike based on their dissatisfaction.
Express Conditions: Satisfaction: Silvestri v. Optus Software, Inc.: When is an objective standard
typically applied to satisfaction clauses? - ANSWER-An objective standard is typically applied
when the contract specifically states so or when the contract involves measurable criteria like
technical fitness or utility.
The obligation to perform to a party. - ANSWER-delegation transfers
Voluntary transfer to a third party of the rights arising from a contract so that the assignor's
rights to performance are extinguished. - ANSWER-assignment of rights
Party making an assignment; handing off the contractual rights. - ANSWER-assignor
Party to whom contract rights are assigned. - ANSWER-assignee
The party owing a duty to the assignor under the original contract, the person who must
perform. - ANSWER-obligor
The party to whom a duty of performance is owed under a contract. - ANSWER-obligee
4|Page
