Mrs. Clements gave USC a written option on a piece of property she owned. The University paid $30,000 to keep the option open from January 3, 2026 until April 3, 2026. On February 15, 2026, Mrs. Clements notified the University in writing that she was revoking her offer. Mrs. Clements then sold the property to Douglas (a bfp).Single choice
A
The University can recover the property from Douglas.
B
Mrs. Clements properly revoked her offer.
C
The University is entitled to damages.
D
None of the above

Question

Mrs. Clements gave USC a written option on a piece of property she owned. The University paid $30,000 to keep the option open from January 3, 2026 until April 3, 2026. On February 15, 2026, Mrs. Clements notified the University in writing that she was revoking her offer. Mrs. Clements then sold the property to Douglas (a bfp).Single choice

A

The University can recover the property from Douglas.

B

Mrs. Clements properly revoked her offer.

C

The University is entitled to damages.

D

None of the above

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

An option contract supported by consideration is irrevocable for the option period: payment to “keep the option open” creates an enforceable option giving the offeree a continuing power to accept until the stated expiration.

1) Relevant legal concepts
- Option contract: an offer plus consideration that creates a binding promise by the offeror not to revoke for the option term. 
- Revocation: normally an offeror can revoke before acceptance, but not where an option has been created by consideration. 
- Bona fide purchaser (BFP) doctrine and recording/notice: a BFP for value without notice may take title free of unrecorded equitable interests; this affects remedies available to the optionee against a subsequent purchaser.
- Remedies: when the seller breaches an option by selling, the optionee’s remedies include specific performance (against persons bound by the option) or damages (against the breaching seller). A BFP who takes without notice typically is not subject to equities; the optionee’s remedy is against the seller for breach (damages).

2) Step-by-step reasoning
- Jan 3–Apr 3, 2026: University paid $30,000 to keep the option open — that establishes consideration and an enforceable option for that period. 
- Feb 15, 2026: Mrs. Clements attempted to revoke while the option was still in force. That revocation was legally ineffective because the option was supported by consideration. The University retained the exclusive power to accept until April 3.
- Subsequent sale to Douglas (a BFP): Because Douglas is a bona fide purchaser, if he bought without notice and (presumably) for value, he generally takes free of the University’s equitable interest. The University cannot generally recover title from a BFP who had no notice.
- Remedy: Mrs. Clements breached the option contract by selling; the University’s appropriate remedy against Mrs. Clements is damages for breach of contract.

3) Intermediate “calculations”/timeline
- Payment date: Jan 3, 2026 → option period begins.
- Attempted revocation: Feb 15, 2026 (within option period) → ineffective.
- Option expiration: Apr 3, 2026 → until then University could accept.
- Sale to BFP: occurred after Feb 15 → BFP likely takes free of the option; seller liable for breach.

4) Why the correct answer is correct
Because the University paid consideration creating an irrevocable option, Mrs. Clements’ revocation was ineffective. After she sold to a bona fide purchaser, the University generally cannot reclaim the property from Douglas, but can sue Mrs. Clements for breach. Thus the University is entitled to damages.

5) Why the other choices are incorrect
- “The University can recover the property from Douglas.” Incorrect: a BFP without notice typically takes free of the option; specific performance against Douglas is unavailable. 
- “Mrs. Clements properly revoked her offer.” Incorrect: revocation during the option term is ineffective because of the $30,000 consideration. 
- “None of the above.” Incorrect because the University does have a valid remedy (damages).

Conclusion: The University is entitled to damages. This matches the provided correct answer.

Similar Questions

The advertisement in the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co was a

Which case established the rule that once an offer is countered, it can no longer be accepted?

The legal principle which arises in the case of Hyde v Wrench focus primarily on:

The case of Harvey v Facey established that

The case of Brinkibon Ltd v Stahag Stahl concluded that

For acceptance to be valid, it must

Which of the following statements is always TRUE?

Anne found the home of her dreams on Friday and made an offer on it that day. The seller of the home accepted her offer on Tuesday. Choose the most correct statement:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler