Roland wants to avoid paying for the training program and claims the contract is indivisible and thus unenforceable.Is he correct?
A)Yes,if Roland could show that the main purpose of the contract was for Parna to work as a poker dealer,then declaring parts of the contract as void would substantially alter the contract.
B)No,because courts are likely to enforce a contract regardless of whether severing the contract would substantially alter it.
C)No,because almost every contract is divisible.
D)No,because even if the legal parts were separated from the contract,the main purpose of the contract employing Parna as a poker dealer)can be met after she turns 21.
E)Yes,because Parna would be unjustifiably enriched if Roland paid for the program.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)Indivisible contracts must be enforced or rejected in their entirety.If declaring
parts of a contract void substantially alters it,the court is not likely to enforce the remaining portions.

Roland Wants to Avoid Paying for the Training Program and Claims