25. A writes B a letter offering to sell B five carloads of lumber according to terms stated - giving B five days to accept. B replies within the five days agreeing to take the lumber on the terms proposed, but adding that It must be "surface two sides and center matched." A, still within the five days responds that it cannot furnish lumber of this description. B, still within the five days, then writes that he will accept the offer contained in the first letter from A to B. Is there a contract? Why? (Shaw v. Ingram Day Lumber Co., 152 Ky. 329, 153 S. W. 431, L. R. A. 1915 D. 145.)

26. A has 1,000 bushels of grain in a granary. He offers B 500 bushels of grain of the same description. The granary is destroyed by fire before B accepts. A claims that this relieves him from fulfilling his contract. Is the contention correct?

27. Can one revoke an offer which he has promised to keep open ? Why ?

28. How long will an offer remain open if not withdrawn?

29. When may an offer be accepted by an act?

30. A mailed an offer to B, with a request for a reply by wire; he sent an offer to C, asking for a reply by return mail. He mailed an offer to D and E, saying nothing as to mode of communication. B replied by mail; C replied by wire; D replied by wire, and E replied by mail, each one purporting to accept the respective offers. Were the contracts made in any of the above cases? If so, when? In your answer assume (1) that A actually received in due course the several answers; and (2) that the replies did not actually reach A owing to the negligence of the postoffice or telegraph company.

31. A telegraphed an offer to B, requesting acceptance by wire. B telegraphed his acceptance at once. One hour later B telegraphed

A to ignore his first telegraph, and A got this second telegraph before the first one. A refuses to agree to B's request. Is there a contract?

Chapter 4

32. A signed a paper without reading it upon B's assurance that it was an insurance paper. It was in fact a guaranty of credit. A is sued by B upon the paper and the jury find (1) That A did not know the nature of the paper he was signing; (2) that his misconception was caused by B's fraudulent statements; (3) that A was negligent in not reading the paper. Has A a defense? (Carlisle & Cumberland Banking Co. v. Bragg, (1911) 1 K. B. 469.)

33. P while riding a bicycle was injured by a collision with D's automobile. He was assured by his own physician and the physician for P that his injuries were slight and consisted of a few superficial injuries. With that belief in the minds of both parties he executed the following release:

"For and in consideration of $75 to me in hand paid by D, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, I hereby remise, release and forever discharge the said D of and from all manner of actions, suits, damages, claims and demands whatsoever, in law or equity, against the said D arising out of an automobile collision occurring Sept. 1, 1912, I ever had or now have or hereafter can or may have for, upon or by reason of any matter, cause or thing whatsoever, from the beginning of the world to the date of these presents." (Signed by P.) As a matter of fact P's hip was broken in the accident. He brings suit to set aside the release. Can he prevail? (Mclsaac v. McMurray, L. R. A 1916 B. 769 N. H.)

34. A and B were stockholders in a bank. According to the books of the bank it had an unimpaired capital and a surplus and the book value of its shares was $136. As a matter of fact, its capital stock had been impaired by the dishonesty of its employees and its stock was actually worth $60 per share, although nobody knew this except the dishonest employees. A sold 10 shares to B for $1,360. B now seeks to set aside the transaction on the ground of a mutual mistake. What is your opinion? (Costello v. Sykes, 172 N. W. 907, 5 A. L. R. 250 (Minn.).)

35. A, in an attempt to sell a second-hand automobile to B, stated that its tires were good for 10,000 miles. They very shortly wore out. Is A liable to B for fraud? (Woods v. Nicholas, 92 Kan. 258, 140 Pac. 862.)

36. A, selling land located in Alabama, called upon B in Detroit, and stated that the land he had to sell was good agricultural land, high and dry, without mire, swamp or boggy portions. B purchased the land. He found the contrary to be true and sues . A contends that his staements were dealer's talk. How should the court decide? (Haener v. MeKenzie, 188 Mich. 27, 154 N. W. 59.)

37. Defendant connected a sewer from his building to a pit in the rear. He then covered the pit with clay and built a residence over it, the pit being full of sewage up to about a foot below the level of the cellar, and sold the residence to plaintiff, telling him nothing about the pit or sewer pipe, and plaintiff could not get tenants to remain in the house owing to the odor. Plaintiff sues for damages. Recover? (Weikel v. Sterns, 142 Ky. 513, 134 S. W. 908, 34 L. R. A. N. S. 1035.)

38. When may silence amount to fraud ?

39. Define duress. What is duress per minas? duress by imprisonment? duress of person? duress of property? What was the ancient test of duress? What is the test now?

40. A was accused of embezzlement from B. B threatened A with criminal prosecution unless he would make restitution. A having no money took B to A's sister C, who being made acquainted by A and B with the threat, executed her note for §1,000 in consideration that B would not prosecute. She now defends on the grounds of duress. Discuss. (Kronmeyer v. Buck, 258 111. 586.)

41. In the same case A deeds his property to B under the same threat in order to make up the balance of B's claim. Assuming (1) that A really is in default to B and (2) that A is not in default to B, would you regard as to either assumption a suit by A to set aside the deed as well or ill-founded? (Kronmeyer v. Buck, supra.)

42. Suppose in the same case A is guilty, and instead of giving a deed gives his note and that a suit is brought to enforce it. Has he a defense?