Question

Bronn and Jaime make a written contract where Jaime will sell Bronn his armor and sword for $1,200.Which of the following is not a defense to the formation of the contract?A. fraudB. illegalityC. incapacityD. unconscionabilityE. mirror image rule

Answer 1

The mirror image rule is not a defense to the formation of a contract and refers to the requirement that the terms of the acceptance must mirror the terms of the offer for a binding contract to exist. Fraud, illegality, incapacity, and unconscionability are all potential defenses against the formation of a contract.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question pertains to potential defenses against the formation of a contract between Bronn and Jaime, where Jaime agrees to sell his armor and sword to Bronn for $1,200. The options given are fraud, illegality, incapacity, unconscionability, and the mirror image rule. Of these, the mirror image rule is not a defense to the formation of the contract, but rather a principle that states a contract can only be formed if the terms stated in the offer are exactly mirrored in the acceptance without any variation or additional terms. The other options listed—fraud, illegality, incapacity, and unconscionability—are indeed potential defenses to the formation of a contract that claim the contract is invalid or voidable for reasons such as deception, unlawful subject matter, lack of legal ability to enter a contract, or grossly unfair terms.

Answer 2

Step-by-step explanation:

There are six defenses of the contract formation which are given below.

• Incapacity
• Statute of Frauds
• Illegality
• Misrepresentation/Fraud
• Duress
• Unconscionability

This rule suggests a contract law rule that the acknowledgment of a contract should match the idea which causes the contract. It means acknowledgment should not become a cause of rejection or counter offer.