This question tests defenses to contract formation, specifically duress through improper threats that undermine voluntary assent. Key facts include the seller's baseless threat to report Paula to the IRS for tax fraud, inducing her to sign the furniture purchase contract to avoid the report. Choice A is correct because economic duress from an improper threat voids the contract by negating genuine assent. Choice B is incorrect because furniture has value and can be consideration; choice C is wrong as the Statute of Frauds does not require witnessing for furniture sales; choice D is incorrect because being a business owner does not affect capacity. To evaluate duress in practice, examine if a threat was wrongful and left no reasonable alternative, rendering assent involuntary. Always differentiate between legitimate pressure and improper coercion in negotiations.

This question tests mutual assent in contract formation, emphasizing the objective theory over subjective intent. Key facts include the contractor's definite offer, the homeowner's express acceptance, the contractor's reliance by starting work, and the homeowner's secret intent not to pay. Choice B is correct because mutual assent is determined by objective manifestations, such as the homeowner's words and actions, forming a valid contract despite hidden intent. Choice A is incorrect because undisclosed intent does not negate objective assent; choice C is wrong as courts do not require adequacy of consideration; choice D is incorrect because written contracts are not always required for services. In practice, apply the objective test by examining outward expressions rather than internal thoughts. If intent to deceive is proven, consider remedies like fraud but not negation of formation.

This question tests the consideration element, specifically illusory promises lacking commitment. Key facts include the buyer's conditional promise dependent on feeling like it, the seller's acceptance, and both parties being competent without duress. Choice A is correct because the buyer's illusory promise provides no real commitment or detriment, lacking valid consideration. Choice B is incorrect because acceptance does not cure illusory terms; choice C is wrong as selling inventory is legal; choice D is incorrect because the Statute of Frauds applies based on value, not all sales. To evaluate consideration, ensure promises are binding and not discretionary. Illusory promises fail to create enforceable contracts.

This question tests the fundamental elements of contract formation under common law and the UCC, focusing on offer, acceptance, consideration, and mutual assent. Key facts include a definite offer with specific terms (quantity, price, delivery), a timely and mirroring acceptance by email, and both parties being competent and acting voluntarily without duress. Choice B is correct because it accurately reflects that a valid contract forms when there is a clear offer, unqualified acceptance, bargained-for consideration (exchange of goods for payment), and mutual assent demonstrated by the parties' communications. Choice A is incorrect because the Statute of Frauds requires a signed writing only for sales of goods over $500, and here the emails likely satisfy it as a writing between merchants; choice C is wrong as notarization is not a general requirement for acceptance; choice D is incorrect because Delta, as the offeree, can properly accept the offeror's proposal. In practice, evaluate contract formation by confirming the presence of all essential elements before considering defenses like the Statute of Frauds. Always distinguish between formation and enforceability, as a contract can form orally but may require writing for proof in court.

This question tests defenses to formation via fraudulent misrepresentation affecting assent. Key facts include the salesperson's false statement about cancellation without penalty, contradicting written terms, and the customer's reliance in signing. Choice A is correct because fraudulent misrepresentation of material facts induces assent, making the contract voidable. Choice B is incorrect because service contracts can have consideration like payment for services; choice C is wrong as cancellation fees are legal if disclosed; choice D is incorrect because not all service contracts require writing under the Statute of Frauds. To evaluate misrepresentation, confirm if the false statement was material and justifiably relied upon. Advise integrating all representations into writings to avoid parol evidence issues.