Milo is the owner of a sporting goods store that has only been open for three months. The holiday season is coming up, and Milo realizes that he will need extra help. Milo asks his friend Jess to help him out at the store. Milo and Jess agree that Jess will work during the months of November and December. However, because Milo is unsure how much help he will need and how much he will be able to pay, they agree to decide each week on the hours that Jess will work for the following week, and to decide the hourly rate after Jess has worked two weeks before she receives her first paycheck. Just before November 1, Jess takes a job at another store. If Milo tries to sue Jess for breach of contract, the court will probably decide:
A. that the parties had a contract, and Jess breached the contract.
B. that the parties had a contract, but the damages could not be ascertained because the hourly rate and number of hours had not been determined.
C. that the parties had no contract because the terms of the offer were not definite.
D. that the parties had no contract because the terms were not in writing.

Sarah is shopping at Sylvia’s thrift store, and notices that the inside of the store needs repainting. Sarah offers to paint the store for $400. Sylvia does not respond to Sarah’s offer. Later that day, Sarah returns to the store with painting supplies in hand and begins painting the store. When Sarah is finished, she demands payment of $400 from Sylvia. Will Sylvia have to pay Sarah for painting the store?
A. Yes, Sylvia will have to pay Sarah for painting the store because silence is always an acceptance of an offer.
B. Yes, Sylvia will have to pay Sarah for painting the store, even though she did not verbally agree to the contract.
C. No, Sylvia will not have to pay Sarah for painting the store because silence can never be an acceptance of an offer.
D. No, Sylvia will not have to pay Sarah for painting the store because Sarah did not verbally agree to the contract.

The weekly Kroger advertisement states that five-pound chubs of ground chuck are available for eighty-nine cents per pound. Arlene sees the advertisement; she realizes that ground chuck has not been priced this low in quite some time, so she hurries to the store to purchase some. Arlene loads seven chubs of ground chuck in her shopping cart. When she goes to the checkout to pay, however, the cashier informs Arlene that the price in the advertisement is a typo and that the correct price is $1.89 per pound. Arlene insists that the store must honor the price listed in the advertisement, because it is an offer that she has just accepted. The cashier calls the store manager for a decision. The store manager will likely explain to Arlene:
A. that the advertisement is a valid offer because it is in writing.
B. that the advertisement is a valid offer, and the store must honor the price in the advertisement.
C. that advertisements are not offers, but merely a request for offers.
D. that the advertisement is a valid offer because its terms are definite.