Niels owned three adjoining pieces of land in Arizona. Hannah wanted to buy one. Over dinner, the two wrote and signed this agreement: "Binding Contract: Niels agrees to sell one of his three Arizona lots to Hannah. Within 14 days, the parties will meet on the land, decide which lot Hannah is buying, and settle on a price. If they cannot agree on a price, they will decide a fair method of doing so. Both parties agree to be bound by this contract." Later, Niels refused to sell any land, and Hannah sued claiming there was a violation of the contract. Hannah will win this case because prices are not important to contracts for the sale of land. True False

True

Explanation:

An agreement is a contractual and binding statement which states that a particular event is bound to happen. This agreement is legal once there was a signature that was appended on it and both parties wilfully enter into it.

Since Niels agrees to sell the land to Hannah with an agreement to abck it up, he renaging on his words means that he has bridged the contract and it is within the rights of Hannah to sue him for bridge of contract agreement between them.

False.

Explanation:

Hanna will lose the case, because the binding contract established between them is not valid for a court, because the factors that determine that the agreement is valid were not established correctly.

In the contract that Niels and Hanna signed it was only established that Niels would sell and that Hanna would buy. This is not enough for the court to assume that there was a breach of contract on Niels' side. For that, it would be necessary that the contract signed between them had established, the price for the lot, how the payment would be made, how the purchase would be financed, how the price was established, among other factors.

In short, Hanna would lose the case because the contract is vague and invalid, not establishing a real commitment between her and Niels.