Can you find me in the photo? :)

I'm going with C- Brown will not be entitled to restitution because the contract validly provides that Smith retains the $15,000 as liquidated damages. A liquidated damages clause is enforceable if damages were difficult to estimate at the time of contracting and the amount is a reasonable forecast of anticipated harm. In real estate contracts, a deposit of approximately 10% of the purchase price is generally upheld as reasonable. Where such a clause is valid, it precludes restitution by the breaching party because the retained sum is treated as agreed-upon damages rather than unjust enrichment. Not to mention expressed terms have to be strictly followed

A valid contract was formed because there was an offer, acceptance, and consideration—the agreement to purchase the property for $150,000 and the $15,000 down payment. There are no facts suggesting any defenses to formation such as fraud, duress, or mistake, so the contract is enforceable. The provision stating that Smith may retain the $15,000 if Brown breaches is an express term, meaning it is explicitly written into the contract. Courts generally enforce clear and unambiguous express terms unless they violate public policy. Brown failed to perform his obligation to purchase the condominium, which constitutes a material breach because he refused to complete the transaction before closing. Although this breach appears willful, that does not automatically bar restitution, so answers A and B are incorrect since modern law allows breaching parties to seek restitution in some circumstances. The clause allowing Smith to retain the $15,000 is a liquidated damages clause, which is a provision that sets damages in advance in the event of a breach. Such clauses are enforceable so long as they are a reasonable estimate of anticipated damages and not a penalty. There is no issue here involving a condition, as this case concerns breach and the enforcement of a damages provision rather than the failure of a condition precedent. A liquidated damages clause will not be enforced if it is unreasonably large and operates as a penalty. However, there is no indication that $15,000 is excessive in relation to a $150,000 contract. Because the amount appears reasonable on its face and the facts do not suggest otherwise, the clause is presumed valid. Therefore, because the contract expressly provides that the down payment will be retained as liquidated damages upon breach, and the clause is enforceable, Brown is not entitled to recover the $15,000.

The issue is whether the receiver completed a legal catch under NFL rules when the ball appeared to be secured before the player stepped out of bounds. Under the National Football League catch rule, a player must secure control of the ball, get two feet or another body part in bounds, and maintain control of the ball long enough to perform a football move or survive contact with the ground. If the player loses control of the ball when contacting the ground, the pass is ruled incomplete. In this play, the receiver appeared to gain control of the ball while falling toward the sideline and got two feet down in bounds. However, when the receiver hit the ground, the ball moved slightly and came loose before the player could establish a clear football move. Because the player did not maintain control of the ball through contact with the ground, the officials determined that the process of the catch was not completed. Therefore, under the NFL catch rule, the officials correctly ruled the pass incomplete, even though it initially looked like a completed catch. The rule requires maintaining possession through the ground, and the receiver failed to do so.

Under contract law, anticipatory repudiation occurs when a party clearly and unequivocally indicates that they will not perform their contractual obligations when performance becomes due. The statement must show a definite and positive refusal to perform, not merely uncertainty or doubt about performance. Here, Kim tells Peter that she “may not be able to perform the contract.” This language expresses uncertainty rather than a clear refusal, because it suggests only the possibility of non-performance rather than a definite intent not to perform. Courts generally require a clear, unequivocal statement of nonperformance before finding repudiation. Because Kim’s statement is ambiguous and does not firmly state that she will not perform, it does not constitute anticipatory repudiation. Instead, Peter would typically have the right to seek adequate assurances of performance, but he cannot yet treat the contract as breached.

Under common law contracts (usually services or construction), the rule is substantial performance, meaning a party does not have to perform perfectly; if they complete most of the contract and the remaining issues are minor, they are still entitled to payment minus the cost of fixing the problem. In contrast, under UCC Article 2, which governs the sale of goods, the perfect tender rule applies, meaning the buyer is entitled to receive goods that conform exactly to the contract terms, and if the goods are defective or incomplete in any respect, the buyer generally has the right to reject them. In simple terms, common law allows “close enough” performance, while the UCC requires exact performance for goods, although the UCC does provide some exceptions, such as the seller’s right to cure or rules for installment contracts.