1|Page
LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B LATEST 2025 ACTUAL EXAM
WITH COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS
(100% VERIFIED ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+| ||PROFESSOR
VERIFIED|| ||BRANDNEW!!!||
Performance that is incomplete but that does not defeat the
purpose of the contract; does not discharge the injured party but
entitles him to damages. - ANSWER-substantial performance
An inability or refusal to perform, before performance is due, that
is treated as a breach, allowing the nonrepudiating party to bring
suit immediately. - ANSWER-anticpatory repudiation
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What was the
agreement between Hochster and De La Tour? - ANSWER-
Hochster agreed to serve as a guide for De La Tour on a three-
month European trip starting June 1, 1852, for a monthly salary.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: When did De La
Tour inform Hochster that he would not honor the contract? -
ANSWER-On May 11, 1852, De La Tour told Hochster he would
not require his services and refused ot pay any compensation.
,2|Page
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What legal action did
Hochster take in response. - ANSWER-He sued De La Tour for
breach of contract, seeking damages for the early repudiation.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What was the key
legal question in the case? - ANSWER-Whether Hochster could
sue for breach before the agreed start date of performance, due
to De La Tour's anticipatory repudiation.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What is anticipatory
breach? - ANSWER-It occurs when one party unequivocally
refuses to perform their contractual duties before the time for
performance has arrived.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What would
Hochster have had to do if he couldn't sue until June 1? -
ANSWER-He would have had to remain available, refuse other
employment, and prepare for a trip that De La Tour already said
would not happen.
,3|Page
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What rationale did
the court give for allowing early suit by the non-breaching party? -
ANSWER-The court reasoned it was more practical and fair to
allow the injured party to treat the contract as breached
immediately, freeing them to seek other employment and mitigate
damages.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: How did the court
rule? - ANSWER-The court ruled in favor of Hochster, allowing
him to recover damages for anticipatory breach.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What key legal
principle was established by this case? - ANSWER-A non-
breaching party may immediately sue for breach when the other
party repudiates the contract before the performance date.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: Why is this ruling
beneficial to the innocent party? - ANSWER-It allows the innocent
party to avoid wasting time and resources on a contract the other
side has already declared they won't fulfill, and lets them seek
alternatives to minimize losses.
, 4|Page
A material and fraudulent alteration of a written contract by a party
to the contract; discharges the entire contract. - ANSWER-
unauthorized material alteration
An agreement between the parties to terminate their respective
duties under the contract. - ANSWER-mutual rescission
A new contract was accepted by both parties in satisfaction of the
parties' duties under the original contract. - ANSWER-substituted
contract
A substituted duty under a contract (accord) and the discharge of
the prior contractual obligation by performance of the new duty
(satisfaction). - ANSWER-accord and satisfaction
Performance of a contract cannot be done. - ANSWER-
impossibility
LSU BLAW 3201 FRY FINAL VERSION B LATEST 2025 ACTUAL EXAM
WITH COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND CORRECT DETAILED ANSWERS
(100% VERIFIED ANSWERS) |ALREADY GRADED A+| ||PROFESSOR
VERIFIED|| ||BRANDNEW!!!||
Performance that is incomplete but that does not defeat the
purpose of the contract; does not discharge the injured party but
entitles him to damages. - ANSWER-substantial performance
An inability or refusal to perform, before performance is due, that
is treated as a breach, allowing the nonrepudiating party to bring
suit immediately. - ANSWER-anticpatory repudiation
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What was the
agreement between Hochster and De La Tour? - ANSWER-
Hochster agreed to serve as a guide for De La Tour on a three-
month European trip starting June 1, 1852, for a monthly salary.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: When did De La
Tour inform Hochster that he would not honor the contract? -
ANSWER-On May 11, 1852, De La Tour told Hochster he would
not require his services and refused ot pay any compensation.
,2|Page
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What legal action did
Hochster take in response. - ANSWER-He sued De La Tour for
breach of contract, seeking damages for the early repudiation.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What was the key
legal question in the case? - ANSWER-Whether Hochster could
sue for breach before the agreed start date of performance, due
to De La Tour's anticipatory repudiation.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What is anticipatory
breach? - ANSWER-It occurs when one party unequivocally
refuses to perform their contractual duties before the time for
performance has arrived.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What would
Hochster have had to do if he couldn't sue until June 1? -
ANSWER-He would have had to remain available, refuse other
employment, and prepare for a trip that De La Tour already said
would not happen.
,3|Page
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What rationale did
the court give for allowing early suit by the non-breaching party? -
ANSWER-The court reasoned it was more practical and fair to
allow the injured party to treat the contract as breached
immediately, freeing them to seek other employment and mitigate
damages.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: How did the court
rule? - ANSWER-The court ruled in favor of Hochster, allowing
him to recover damages for anticipatory breach.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: What key legal
principle was established by this case? - ANSWER-A non-
breaching party may immediately sue for breach when the other
party repudiates the contract before the performance date.
Anticipatory Breach: Hochster v. De La Tour: Why is this ruling
beneficial to the innocent party? - ANSWER-It allows the innocent
party to avoid wasting time and resources on a contract the other
side has already declared they won't fulfill, and lets them seek
alternatives to minimize losses.
, 4|Page
A material and fraudulent alteration of a written contract by a party
to the contract; discharges the entire contract. - ANSWER-
unauthorized material alteration
An agreement between the parties to terminate their respective
duties under the contract. - ANSWER-mutual rescission
A new contract was accepted by both parties in satisfaction of the
parties' duties under the original contract. - ANSWER-substituted
contract
A substituted duty under a contract (accord) and the discharge of
the prior contractual obligation by performance of the new duty
(satisfaction). - ANSWER-accord and satisfaction
Performance of a contract cannot be done. - ANSWER-
impossibility
