JD Next Practice Exam

In the scenario presented, if Rollem has sold the car after agreeing to sell it to Betsy and she chooses to reject the return of her payment, her claims regarding breach of contract hinge on the existence of a legal agreement and her standing within that agreement. Betsy's rejection of the return of her payment indicates that she either is not asserting a claim against Rollem or is not entitled to any remedies typically associated with a breach of contract.

Since Rollem has acted against the terms of the agreement by selling the car to someone else, it is essential to consider whether Betsy retains the right to enforce the original agreement. If she has no standing, it would imply that she does not have a valid contractual claim because her refusal to accept the return of her funds suggests a consent to the actions of Rollem, thus limiting her ability to demand performance or damages.

In a breach of contract context, a party typically must demonstrate standing to bring forward a claim by showing how they have been harmed or disadvantaged by the other party's actions. In this case, if Betsy believes she still has recourse despite accepting her payment back, her options for claiming breach of contract could be severely limited by her own actions and choices. Such a stance can lead to