Looking for Question Type
All
Some states give consumers the right to cancel certain contracts for any reason within a short period of time after entering into them. For example, consumers in California can get out of gym membership contracts by sending the gym a cancellation notice within five business days of joining. Similar statutes cover insurance, weight loss services, door-to-door sales, and home repair contracts. If these agreements meet all of the requirements for a contract, why would a state allow people to get out of them so easily? Is this good policy? Alternatively, if consumers can cancel these contracts, why not allow everyone to cancel any contract within a few days?
Free
Essay
Answer:
Answer:
Enforceability of a contract largely depends upon both the parties involved in a contract. A contract is enforceable when all the conditions laid down in a contract are fulfilled and satisfy the requirements of a contract.
Some states give consumers the rights to cancel certain contracts for any reason within a short period of time after entering the contract. This facility or provision is allowed for the consumers so as to ascertain that if the consumers are not happy and satisfied with the services given under the contract, he has a right to opt out of the contract.
Contracts like gym membership in Califo--ia, where an enrolled member can come out of this contract within 5 days of joining. Some countries provide consideration of cancellation of contracts by the consumers that covers insurance, weight loss, door- to-door sales and services, home repair contracts etc. This is all provided for the benefit of consumers and this law changes and varies in different states.
The agreements that meet all the requirements for a contract, and if a state would allow people to get out of contract as per consumers satisfaction are allowed in few states. Secondly the contracts those are not huge in amount that it cannot be cancelled, are allowed for opt out. Even the agreement states the conditions are not satisfied; a consumer can opt out of the contract within a specified time.
The consumers are not allowed to cancel certain contracts within a few days that involve huge conditions like marriage contract, lease contract, buying and selling of properties etc. As these contracts involve huge money and high risk, thus it is not allowed to opt out of these contracts so easily.
Choose question tag
Consider promissory estoppel and quasi-contracts. Do you like the fact that these doctrines exist? Should courts have "wiggle room" to enforce deals that fail to meet formal contract requirements? Or, should the rule be "If it's not an actual contract, too bad. No deal."
Free
Essay
Answer:
Answer:
Promissory estoppel is explained below:
Promissory estoppel is termed as a possible remedy for an injured plaintiff in a case there is no valid contract.
Quasi contract is explained below:
Quasi contract is termed as an obligation between parties without an agreement. This contract is a solution for an injured plaintiff. The plaintiff shows the benefit to the defendant expectation of payment and unfair enrichment.
Existence of doctrines is explained below:
The doctrine of promissory estoppels allows a party to recover the benefit of a promise made, even if a legal contract does not exist. And quasi contract is made potential by a doctrine of "Quantum Meruit", which allows courts to imply a contract where no contract exists. Therefore, doctrine exists for both the contracts.
Courts have wiggle room to enforce deals that fail to meet formal contract requirements is explained below:
Yes, the court has wiggle room to enforce deals that fails to meet formal contract requirements. This is mainly done for further negotiation in the contract.
However, wiggle room rule are not applicable, incase if there is no actual contract, because all contracts must be enforceable in the court of law.
Choose question tag
Have you read your apartment lease lately? How about your cellular service agreement? One study found that 67% of consumers do not read the contracts they sign. But notice that a contract is still enforceable, whether or not you read it. Which contracts should you read? iTunes terms and conditions? Your mortgage? An employment agreement?
Free
Essay
Answer:
Answer:
Enforceability of a contract largely depends upon both the parties involved in a contract. A contract is enforceable or workable when all the conditions laid down in a contract are fulfilled.
In one of the study, it has been found that 67% of consumers do not read the contracts they sign. It is very much true that even when people move into an apartment, they did not pay very close attention to the apartment lease rules and agreement and do not seriously read all the contracts cellular service agreement. A contract is still enforceable whether one reads the terms and conditions or not when they sign it.
The contract that one should read includes all those contracts where the term "I agree to the terms and conditions" is given in the end of the contract. Before signing any contract it is very important to read all the terms and conditions because even if the conditions are not read, it becomes enforceable under the contract.
It is very necessary to read iTunes terms and conditions. Mortgage contract has to be read very meticulously as this contract carries a high level of fraud and over charging of interest rates. Even employment agreement should be read thoroughly before signing it as there are certain conditions that might be not suitable for the employee, so it is necessary to bargain over those conditions prior coming into an agreement.
Choose question tag
Gail Norton began dating Russell Hoyt under the mistaken impression that he was single. She later learned that he was married, but he repeatedly assured her he was getting a divorce. Six years later, Hoyt convinced Norton to quit her job so that they could travel together. He promised that he would "take care of her for life." The couple lived lavishly all over the world. Hoyt rented Norton an apartment, bought her cars, and repeated his promises to divorce his wife and marry her. He did neither. After 23 years, Hoyt ended the relationship with Norton. On what theory could Norton sue Hoyt? Is she likely to win?
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
YOU BE THE JUDGE WRITING PROBLEM John Stevens owned a dilapidated apartment that he rented to James and Cora Chesney for a low rent. The Chesneys began to remodel and rehabilitate the unit. Over a four-year period, they installed two new bathrooms, carpeted the floors, installed new septic and heating systems, and rewired, replumbed, and painted. Stevens periodically stopped by and saw the work in progress. The Chesneys transformed the unit into a respectable apartment. Three years after their work was done, Stevens served the Chesneys with an eviction notice. The Chesneys counterclaimed, seeking the value of the work they had done. Are they entitled to it? Argument for Stevens: Mr. Stevens is willing to pay the Chesneys exactly the amount he agreed to pay: nothing. The parties never contracted for the Chesneys to fix up the apartment. In fact, they never even discussed such an agreement. The Chesneys are making the absurd argument that anyone who chooses to perform certain work, without ever discussing it with another party, can finish the job and then charge it to the other person. If the Chesneys expected to get paid, obviously they should have said so. If the court were to allow this claim, it would be inviting other tenants to make improvements and then bill the landlord. The law has never been so foolish. Argument for the Chesneys: The law of quasi-contract was crafted for cases exactly like this. The Chesneys have given an enormous benefit to Stevens by transforming the apartment and enabling him to rent it at greater profit for many years to come. Stevens saw the work being done and understood that the Chesneys expected some compensation for these major renovations. If Stevens never intended to pay the fair value of the work, he should have stopped the couple from doing the work or notified them that there would be no compensation. It would be unjust to allow the landlord to seize the value of the work, evict the tenants who did it, and pay nothing.
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
A sitcom actor, exhausted after his 10-hour workweek, agrees to buy a briefcase full of cocaine from Lewis for $12,000. Lewis and the actor have ____________a contract. (a) valid
(b) unenforceable
(c) voidable
(d) void
Multiple Choice
Answer:
Choose question tag
Interactive Data Corp. hired Daniel Foley as an assistant product manager at a starting salary of $18,500. Over the next six years, Interactive steadily promoted Foley until he became Los Angeles branch manager at a salary of $56,116. Interactive's officers repeatedly told Foley that he would have his job so long as his performance was adequate. In addition, Interactive distributed an employee handbook that specified "termination guidelines," including a mandatory seven-step pre-termination procedure. Two years later, Foley learned that his recently hired supervisor, Robert Kuhne, was under investigation by the FBI for embezzlement at his previous job. Foley reported this to Interactive officers. Shortly thereafter, Interactive fired Foley. He sued, claiming that Interactive could fire him only for good cause, after the sevenstep procedure. What kind of a claim is he making? Should he succeed?
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Consider the following scenarios: I. Madison says to a group of students, "I'll pay $35 to the first one of you who shows up at my house and mows my lawn."
II) Lea posts a flyer around town that reads, "Reward: $500 for information about the person who keyed my truck last Saturday night in the Wag-a-Bag parking lot. Call Lea at 555-5309."
Which of these proposes a unilateral contract?
(a) I only
(b) II only
(c) Both I and II
(d) None of the above
Multiple Choice
Answer:
Choose question tag
Central Maine Power Co. made a promotional offer in which it promised to pay a substantial sum to any homeowner or builder who constructed new housing heated with electricity. Motel Services, Inc., which was building a small housing project for the city of Waterville, Maine, decided to install electrical heat in the units in order toqualify for the offer. It built the units and requested payment for the full amount of the promotional offer. Is Central Maine obligated to pay? Why or why not?
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
ETHICS You want to lease your automobile to a friend for the summer but do not want to pay a lawyer to draw up the lease. Joanna, a neighbor, is in law school. She is not licensed to practice law. She offers to draft a lease for you for $100, and you unwisely accept. Later, you refuse to pay her fee, and she sues to collect. Who will win the lawsuit, and why? Apart from the law, was it morally right for the law student to try to help you by drafting the lease? Was she acting helpfully or foolishly or fraudulently? Is it just for you to agree to her fee and then refuse to pay it? What is society's interest in this dispute? Should a court be more concerned with the ethical issue raised by the conduct of the two parties or with the social consequences of this agreement?
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Is it sensible to have two different sets of contract rules-one for sales of goods and another for everything else? Would it be better to have a single set of rules for all contracts?
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
Have you ever made an agreement that mattered to you, only to have the other person refuse to follow through on the deal? Looking at the list of elements in the chapter, did your agreement amount to a contract? If not, which element did it lack?
Essay
Answer:
Choose question tag
On the first day of the baseball season, Dean orders a new Cardinals hat from Amazon. At themoment he submits his order,Dean and Amazon have an_________contract. Two days later, Amazon delivers the hat toDean's house. At this point,Dean and Amazon have an_________contract. (a) executory; executory
(b) executory; executed
(c) executed; executory
(d) executed; executed
Multiple Choice
Answer:
Choose question tag
Carol says, "Pam, you're my best friend in the world. I just inherited a million bucks, and I want you to have some of it. Come with me to the bank tomorrow, and I'll give you $10,000." "Sweet!" Pam replies. Later that day, Carol has a change of heart. She is allowed to do so. Examine the list of the elements of a contract, and cite the correct reason. (a) The agreement was not put into writing.
(b) The agreement lacks a legal purpose.
(c) Pam did not give consideration.
(d) Pam does not have the capacity to make a contract.
Multiple Choice
Answer:
Choose question tag
Linda goes to an electronics store and buys a high-definition television. Lauren hires a company to clean her swimming pool once a week. The __________ governs Linda's contract with the store, and the _________governs Lauren's contract with the cleaning company. (a) common law; common law
(b) common law; UCC
(c) UCC; common law
(d) UCC; UCC
Multiple Choice
Answer:
Choose question tag
Contact Us
© 2020-2022 Quizplus LLC. All Rights Reserved