Business Law 201
Question one:
Question two:
Joint and several contract because several people (study team) has agreed to pay the fees to the tutor.
Question three:
Doctor Kut Wright can only recover up to a maximum of $800 for the benefit extended to Henry. Though the contract was unenforceable since it was not entered into, Wright is entitled to compensation for the costs incurred for missing his flight amounting to $400 and the reasonable amount of $400 for the one hour. It is clear that the requirements of recovery for quasi-contracts were met since the doctor was in reasonable expectation of payments.
Question four:
Pay the amount of $650 at the landlord’s office at the apartment building which is nearer before the close of business on that 5th day of the month.
Question five:
No offers were made since the statements by Joanna of willingness to sell her horse were not unequivocal and were not directed to a particular person. The statement by Helen and Eleanor as to their desire to buy the horse are similarly no offers for the aforementioned reason.
Question six:
The seller of the car has the right to refuse to sell the car by refusing to confirm the sale if he feels that the reserve price has not been met. Equally, there is no obligation on the part of the seller to announce the reserve price.
Question seven:
Cal has purchased the kitten since he has accepted the initial offer of buying a kitten at $25 each.
Question eight:
Rebecca has purchased kitten number one for the agreed $ 30.
Question nine:
There is no contract between Angie and Cal’s estate since the death of the offeree terminates the contract by operation of law. As for Sue, the case will turn on whether the time that has expired since her offer is reasonable to later on accept the offer.
Question ten:
A contract arose on May 2 between Rodney and Doris upon the sending of the acceptance letter by mail (postal rule)
Question eleven:
It refers to the agreement containing a variety of important terms in the transaction.
Question twelve:
The UETA will not apply since section 3 of the Act limits its application to matters related to business, commerce and government which is not the case here.
Question thirteen:
Rick was required to refurbish the tennis court since it was his consideration sufficient to validate the contract he signed with Ernie in return for the incorporation of the company. However, Rick was not entitled to the extra money that Ernie chose to gift him.
Question fourteen:
The Disposition of Claim was binding on the parties and Rick Raidder was not entitled to any extra pay in accordance with the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Question fifteen:
The contract that had been entered into between Lenny and the store attendant is void for want of capacity. This is so because Lenny was a minor at the time of entering into the contract. As such, the purported sale and payments are invalid. In effect, Lenny is entitled to the maximum price of sale of $60.
Question sixteen:
The contracts purportedly entered into by the three investors Harvey, Irving and Julius are invalid and void for lack of capacity. One of the investors was insane while the other two were intoxicated and as such their contracts would only have been valid if they signed it in a state of lucidity.
Question seventeen:
Evelyn must neither pay Mark the $10 taxi fare nor $5 to Henry for the crab as they are operating illegally for lack of acquiring and/or renewing their license. The contract is thus tainted by an illegality and cannot be remedied in court. Evelyn will therefore attract no legal consequences if she fails to pay as there was no valid contract that is enforceable in court (ex turpi causa non oritu actio).
Question eighteen:
Mark and Henry can both accept the new positions offered by the Seattle management consulting firm which offers higher pay despite the contract signed with Evelyn. The contract signed with Evelyn restricting their conduct of business in Washington and Oregon for 20 years is more than necessary to protect the interest of Evelyn. So is the contract prohibiting Henry from engaging in similar employment in Japan, Canada and the United States? Was such a contract in restraint of trade to be upheld, it would mean that persons would suffer for lack of livelihood and further impinge on the doctrine of freedom of contracts.
Question nineteen:
Jeff, Annie and Margaret would be able to bring an action against Evelyn for negligent conduct in failing to keep her premises in a good and safe condition. This is in line with the Occupier’s Liability Act. The contract purportedly signed tending to exculpate or exempt Evelyn from any liability arising from the transaction is void. This is a classic case of an unconscionable bargain which is unfair and which will not be countenanced by the court as it weighs unfairly on one of the weaker party. Jeff will have the greatest likelihood of recovering damages since he is a boy and as such he would not have been expected to have utmost care as his priorities.
Question twenty:
Andrea can enforce payment of the bond interest despite the fact that the contract as executed was in breach of the law for being tainted with illegality. This is because Andrea was unaware of the illegality of the contract that he entered to. As such, the law will act to protect innocent third party. On the other hand, Jose cannot recover the $20,000 paid to Evelyn since Jose was well aware of the illegality and went ahead to perpetrate it. This is because the law will not act to operate to those who act outside its ambit.
Question twenty one:
Yes. Roberta can still require Josh to sell him the specimen at the agreed fee of $50 as contracted and as well purchase the shares at$2000 as initially agreed. The later developments where Josh learns of the actual situation and the value of the specimen are immaterial.
Question twenty two:
Greg can require Roberta to refund the money extended to him in consideration of the stock certificate since Roberta had misrepresented facts o him in a fraudulent manner. As such, Greg can seek a rescission of the contract which essentially means that the state that was subsisting before the creation of the contract is reinstated. However, Roberta is under no obligation to pay Tamara for the lost suit since it as a contingent liability which was well known to both parties and no evidence of fraud is proved.
Question twenty three:
The contract as signed cannot be overturned by Maria as the undue influence or undue pressure alleged was not as a result of Fast Cash as to vitiate the contract.
Question twenty four:
Rick is liable for an amount of $600 payable for the Onset Personal Guidance Plan as contracted. More so, Sam is under no obligation to honor the $1800 price for the Long Term Body Plan as initially contracted. This is because the contracts were not reduced into writing as is the legal requirement and were therefore a nullity.
Question twenty five:
Sam can enforce the contract against Blossom as can Blossom against Sam since the writing in the email is sufficient as required by Statute of Frauds. The requirements include the names of the parties, the subject matter, quantity and consideration. The price in question is not essential and the same is dependent on the particular type of question.
Question twenty six:
The parole evidence rule acts to exclude any oral evidence which has the effect of contradicting, varying, adding or subtracting the written terms of a contract. However, Blossom will be allowed to introduce the oral evidence in court since the same falls within the exception provided for against the exclusion of parole evidence. This is because the evidence is oral condition precedent to a written contract.
Question twenty seven:
During the assignment of tenancy or subletting of an apartment, the original tenant is not under an obligation to make good the damage of the assignee tenant. In this case, Jake is not liable for the rent accrued by his assignee Linda for the month of February. Similarly, Linda is not under any obligation to pay the damage resulting from the party done by Jake. Also, Linda could not be evicted by the landlord.
Question twenty eight:
Meredith has the highest right to use the concert ticket given by Rex as he was informed later on.
Question twenty nine:
Calvin must have the electrical work repaired at his own expense and he should not have delegated the bookcase work to Frank. It is trite law that a delegation is a nullity if it poses a threat to the commercial viability or expectations of the obligee. It is clear that the task in this instance was one requiring the specific skills of the person assigned and therefore should not have been delegated.
Question thirty:
Calvin must not reimburse Ned for the appreciation that never occurred in the value of the house as Ned is not a party to the contract and is thus exempted by the doctrine of privity of contract. The same is not cured by the doctrine of third party rights as a beneficiary since Ned does not meet the test required to benefit as a third party.
Question thirty one:
Winona is required to pay a substantial amount to Calvin for the construction of the house to the tune of the agreed $45 000 less the $1500 needed to effect the changes or correct the deviations, in accordance with the doctrine of substantial performance. Since Winona is not satisfied with Artys painting as had been stipulated in the contract, she is under no obligation to either accept or pay for the same. The fact that it has won a prestigious award is irrelevant.
Question thirty two:
Amerlair is not obligated to accept delivery of the Aircuss plane as it does not meet the specifications. Neither does the company have to wait until September 1 so as to file a suit against Goieng with respect to aircraft number two because the company has discharged the initial contract by way of agreement.
Question thirty three:
Mary is not contractually required to purchase the stock as she can seek to discharge the contract of stock purchase by way of frustration caused by a supervening event which has made it impossible for her to continue with her obligations.
Question thirty four:
Brown can recover both payments in the form of compensatory damages to recompense for the lost income as well as consequent damages that would have accrued had he done business as he had arranged.
Question thirty five:
Brown will surely not recover all the lost future profits that he would have accrued since he failed to mitigate his losses by buying other ostriches which were available so as to cushion him from the hardship occasioned. It is also likely that he may not recover punitive damages against Birdseed since the action offering fertilizers to the birds was not an act that was willed on his part nor in contempt of any order, but rather a misapprehension.
Question thirty six:
Brown is not entitled to recover $300 from Birdseed ad $10,000 from the appliance store as these are penalties that are stipulated in a contract which are unfair as opposed to the normal way of unliquidated damages to be assessed by the court.
Question thirty seven:
The court will not order Professor Patty Paws to inspect Brown’s far since this is a contract of personal service of which the courts do not give the relief of specific performance. However, the court will order Capp to shop the hairy penguins to Brown so as to avoid a possible substantial loss to him by way of the equitable relief of specific performance in strict compliance to the terms of the contract.
