In 1969, at the age of seventeen, Person A began working for company P. She had reached the rank of a bookkeeper, chief of office and right-hand treasurer by 2007. The board of chiefs of company P, in recognition of their capacity, dedication, and long service time, agreed to increase the month-to-month salary of Individual A to $4,000 and make a retirement plan. The agreement allowed person A to be granted the privilege of withdrawing from the complex contract if she wished to accept a retirement payment of $2,000 per month for life, even though the board expressed in faith that Person A would continue to represent the organization for a long time. Person A, as it may be, agreed to resign two a long time later. Company F has paid her retirement pay to Person A until 2016. The business suspended instalments from that point on. To discuss: The arguments that the company’s promise to pay person A $2,000 per month for life is enforceable.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 12, Problem 1TS

Summary Introduction

Case summary:

In 1969, at the age of seventeen, Person A began working for company P. She had reached the rank of a bookkeeper, chief of office and right-hand treasurer by 2007. The board of chiefs of company P, in recognition of their capacity, dedication, and long service time, agreed to increase the month-to-month salary of Individual A to $4,000 and make a retirement plan. The agreement allowed person A to be granted the privilege of withdrawing from the complex contract if she wished to accept a retirement payment of $2,000 per month for life, even though the board expressed in faith that Person A would continue to represent the organization for a long time. Person A, as it may be, agreed to resign two a long time later. Company F has paid her retirement pay to Person A until 2016. The business suspended instalments from that point on.

To discuss: The arguments that the company’s promise to pay person A $2,000 per month for life is enforceable.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Sheila owned an old roadside building that she believed could be easily converted into an antique shop. She talked to her friend Barbara, an antique fancier, and they executed the following written agreement: a. Sheila would supply the building, all utilities, and $100,000 capital for purchasing antiques. b. Barbara would supply $30,000 for purchasing antiques, Sheila would repay her when the business terminated. c. Barbara would manage the shop, make all purchases, and receive a salary of $500 per week plus 5 percent of the gross receipts. d. Fifty percent of the net profits would go into the purchase of new stock. The balance of the net profits would go to Sheila. e. The business would operate under the name “Roadside Antiques.” Business went poorly, and after one year, a debt of $40,000 is owed to Old Fashioned, Inc., the principal supplier of antiques purchased by Barbara in the name of Roadside Antiques. Old Fashioned sues Roadside Antiques, and Sheila and Barbara as partners.…

David E. Ross, his two brothers, and their families operated and owned the entire stock of five businesses. Ross had three children: Rod, David II, and Betsy. David II and Betsy were not involved in the operation of the companies, but Rod began working for one of the firms, Equitable Life and Casualty Insurance Company, in 2007. Between 2009 and 2013, the elder Ross informed a number of persons of his desire to reward Rod for his work with Equitable Life by giving him stock in addition to the stock he would inherit. He subsequently executed several stock transfers to Rod, representing shares in various family businesses, which were reflected by appropriate entries on the corporate books. Certificates were issued in Rod’s name and placed in an envelope identified with the name Rod Ross, but they were kept with the other family stock certificates in an office safe to which Rod did not have access. In all, one-fourth of the stock holdings of David E. Ross were transferred to Rod in this…

Brandt Crossing Investments, Inc., was a family-owned property investment organization, investing in undeveloped properties when prices were low and then selling them when prices went up. Among its holdings, Brandt Crossing owned fifty acres of undeveloped land next to another fifty acres of undeveloped land owned by Khloe Hadid. Carter Rios, property manager for Brandt Crossing, approached Hadid and offered to purchase her fifty acres “for Brandt.” Hadid sold the property for $50,000. Within one year, Brandt Crossing sold its 100 acres, including the property bought from Hadid, to a developer for $1,000,000. Richard Brandt, a 5% owner of Brandt Crossing Investments and an old high school acquaintance of Hadid, saw her at the mall and told her of the recent sale. Furious that she had lost out on the income and convinced that Rios had misled her, Hadid sued Richard Brandt for the acts of his agent, Rios. Hadid argued that the facts were sufficient to create an agency by estoppel…