Case to be dishonest and deceitful over the

Case QuestionsChapter 101.    Gail was expecting Russell Hoyt to be single. Later Gail Norton realized that Russell Hoyt was married. The claim that most closely fits this factual scenario is promissory estoppel. The alleged promise itself is nebulous. Hoyt a had proven himself to be dishonest and deceitful over the course of 23 years, and a jury might find that she was acting unreasonably in believing everything he says. 2.    This is a breach of contract claim. The employer failed to use the terms of the contract detailing a termination procedure. Most likely Daniel Foley will succeed because a court will uphold the terms of an agreement unless they are severely unfair or against public policy. Heer, the employer, had the opportunity to fire Daniel Foley if they wanted to. Since the method does not seem to be inherently unfair to either party, the could find the employer to breach the contract. Foley is arguing that he was an implied contract with interactive based on the informal discussions concerning his future and employee handbook. The handbook alone was not enough. 3.    They’re entitled to the value of their work. They have neither an express nor an implied contract for the job. Stevens did nothing to create either. He was aware of the work they were doing, and he should know that they would reasonably expect compensation. It’s unjust to allow him to keep the benefit without paying anything. 4.    No contract then there is no sale. An auction is with reserve unless stated otherwise. Putting an item for auction is not an offer. The actual bids are offers. In an auction reserve, the items for sale have a minimum price, and the auctioneer will not sell for less than its reserve. This case turned up to be the auction without reserve, and the bid is to the highest. The seller, in this case, the town, has the right to reject all of the offers. In the absence of acceptance of their proposal, the Chevaliers have no reason to the lot. 5.    A counteroffer is termed as an offer made in response to a previous offer. It’s a new offer made in response to the last proposal. The original offer is rejected and requires an acceptance under the terms of the counteroffer otherwise there is no contract. As per this case, the Dukes are not entitled to the land at $55,000 because there was a counteroffer. They offered a contract with an optional clause, but Ms. Wheatly crossed it out. Ms. Whatley made some changes in the present offer for $50,000. The option at $50,000 is rejected. The Dukes win nothing. Chapter 111.    There is a case of negligence on the part of yellow pages, and due to the non printing of the ad, art’s flower shop suffer losses. Ehre, the damaged caused the flower shop is not about the cost of the distribution of the advertisement rather the loss of business due to the nonprinting of the ad in yellow pages. It is the case of negligence in service delivery and does not give exculpatory clause, a way to go away from the responsibility of the Yellow pages. Because there was a difference in the bargaining power of the parties, a court would likely conclude that this is a situation where the contract was such that a reasonable person would not offer and another person would not accept. The clause was unenforceable. 2.    Guyan is not entitled to enforce the noncompete clause. The noncompete clause is unenforceable. This is because the two companies are not in completion and Guyan therefor has no confidential information or customer list to protect.  3.    Three claims that parties make to rescind a contract based on lack of valid consent include fraud, mistake, and coercion. Morell is allowed to rescind the contract. Here there is no fraud because Conley does not know the damage caused by the underground storage tanks. Therefore the case associated with the concept reality of consent by the parties. 4.    Under the patrol evidence rule, if the parties intended the guaranty to be integrated, which they almost certainly did, Giffin may testify only if the writing is ambiguous or incomplete. The state supreme court ruled that the document was complete and unambiguous. 5.    It makes no difference whether he said it or not. An oral promise in consideration of marriage is unenforceable. Steve was not obligated to pay child support. Chapter 121.    Loehmann’s violate the lease by failing to pay current charges within ten days of the default letter, regardless of whether ten days is measured from the day of mailing or receipt. It would be a dangerous way to permit for any breach. The breach was trivial. It would be a terrible precedent to license forfeiture for an inconsequential offense. Lohmann’s immaterial breach can be excused because it doesn’t affect the essential terms of the contract. 2.    Summary Judgement granted for Scottsdale Plaza, with the case remanded to the trial court to access damages. Kuhn has no legitimate claim for impossibility or impracticability. Kuhn does not and cannot allege that it was impossible for it to perform, but instead that the resort’s performance had been rendered worthless. This is a claim of frustration for the purpose. To win on such a request, Kuhn must show that the principal goal of the convention which the European employees would appear.  3.    Consequential damages are termed as a compensation for the harm that results inform particular circumstances of the plaintiff. In this case, significant costs are higher than the direct loss because compensation for the injury that results from form specific circumstances is higher. Punitive damages are occasionally awarded in the lawsuits that involve both contact and an international tort. 4.    He should seek restitution. Expectation damages will be unavailable bankrupt. Specific performance is improssible becsue Racicky does not own the land. Reformation is irrelevant. Simon gets restitution since he has conferred a befit on Racicky and it would be unjust for the defendant to keep it. 5.    This case starts the issue of substantial performance. The court showed that the low garage ceiling was a small problem and would not defeat significant accomplishment. The cracked beams were very serious and might require reconstruction. The water collecting on the patio could seep into the house and destroy the foundation. The freezing pipes posed a danger of bursting. The contractor had failed to perform substantially and was not entitled to his contract price. Chapter 131.    Contract that should be definitely in written areContracts in consideration must be in written agreement between partiesSome deals on the change of land are in written formArrangements by the executor to pay debts on the estate with their own money2.    Zoe should include a fixed amount of salary on which she would be working. At the same time, she should also include the incentives to be included in the contract. She should also include additional benefits that are provided to other executives in the company. She should also include the period in which she would be required to deliver a specific goal and the budget to be proved to achieve the goals. Phil could include the goals that the CIO would be required to achieve in the contact. The job responsibilities and roles should also be-be included in the contract. The salary, bonus, and incentives that the company would be paying Zoe should be included in the deal. Other terms and conditions related to the confidentiality of the work and the prohibition-related with the sharing of the data should also be mentioned in the contract. 3.    Three contract’s provisions which are materials:Provisions on choice of lawProvision on choice of forumProvisions on ambiguity    Three contact’s provisions that are not material are given below    Provisions for reciprocal promises    Provisions on warranties and representations4.    The issue is whether Distributor used reasonable efforts. The fact that sales increased is irrelevant. 5.    In this case, the insurance company is liable to Chip because the insurance polity has only fire damages. The court can rule this case under the provision of ambiguity. Therefore, it must be interpreted against the drafted contract.