MINDTAP BUSINESS LAW FOR MANN/ROBERTS S
17th Edition
ISBN: 9781337094498
Author: Roberts
Publisher: IACCENGAGE
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 12, Problem 7Q
Summary Introduction
To discuss: Whether there is valid consideration in the given three situations.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
2. Seller and Buyer negotiate for the sale of 100 acres of land. They orally agree on a price of $100,000, with payment to be made within 10 days and the deed delivered within another 30 days. Buyer sends Seller a letter in which all these terms are included, along with a check for $100,000 that Seller deposits. Seller fails to deliver a deed, and Buyer seeks to enforce the contract. Is the contract enforceable?
1. Seller and Buyer negotiate for the sale of 100 acres of land. They orally agree on a price of $100,000, one half in cash at closing and the other half 90 days after closing. Buyer sends Seller a letter in which all the terms are included and is signed by Buyer. Seller never responds. When the closing date arrives, Seller refuses to transfer title. Buyer sues. Is the agreement enforceable at law?
2. Seller and Buyer negotiate for the sale of 100 acres of land. They orally agree on a price of $100,000, with payment to be made within 10 days and the deed delivered within another 30 days. Buyer sends Seller a letter in which all these terms are included, along with a check for $100,000 that Seller deposits. Seller fails to deliver a deed, and Buyer seeks to enforce the contract. Is the contract enforceable?
3. John is president and sole shareholder of Photo, Inc. Photo, Inc. wishes to borrow money, but to do so, the bank requires John to orally guarantee to repay the loan if…
Ming entered into a contract with Lee to supply Lee with smuggled cigarettes. Lee received
the smuggled cigarettes and tried to sell them off at a profit. However, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, Lee could not find any buyer for the smuggled cigarettes. Without any profit, Lee
was unable to pay Ming the outstanding sum under their contract.
Required:
Analyse whether Ming is entitled to seek assistance from the court to claim back the
outstanding sum under the contract from Lee. Support your discussion with relevant legal
principles and cases, if any.
Chapter 12 Solutions
MINDTAP BUSINESS LAW FOR MANN/ROBERTS S
Ch. 12 - Prob. 1COCh. 12 - Prob. 2COCh. 12 - Prob. 3COCh. 12 - Prob. 4COCh. 12 - Prob. 5COCh. 12 - Prob. 1QCh. 12 - Prob. 2QCh. 12 - Prob. 3QCh. 12 - Prob. 4QCh. 12 - Prob. 5Q
Ch. 12 - Prob. 6QCh. 12 - Prob. 7QCh. 12 - Prob. 8QCh. 12 - Prob. 9QCh. 12 - Prob. 10QCh. 12 - Prob. 11QCh. 12 - Prob. 12CPCh. 12 - Prob. 13CPCh. 12 - Prob. 14CPCh. 12 - Prob. 15CPCh. 12 - Prob. 16CPCh. 12 - Prob. 17CPCh. 12 - Prob. 18CPCh. 12 - Prob. 19CPCh. 12 - Prob. 20CPCh. 12 - Prob. 1TSCh. 12 - Prob. 2TSCh. 12 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- “A” and “B” entered into a verbal contract whereby “A” agreed to sell to “B” his only parcel of land for P20,000 and B agreed to buy at the aforementioned price. “B” went to the bank, withdrew the necessary amount, and returned to “A” for the consummation of the contract. “A,” however, had changed his mind and refused to go through with the sale. Is the agreement valid? Will an action by “B” against “A” for specific performance prosper? Reason.arrow_forwardAnderson, a farmer, orally agreed to buy a used tractor from the Copeland Equipment Company for $475. Copeland delivered the tractor to Anderson, who used it for 11 days. During this period, Anderson could not borrow enough funds to cover the purchase price. Anderson therefore returned the tractor to Copeland. Both parties agreed that their sales contract was canceled when the tractor was returned. However, Copeland later claimed that under the doctrine of quasi- contract, Anderson was required to pay for the 11-day use of the tractor. Do you agree with Copeland? Explain your answer. [See Anderson v. Copeland, 378 P.2d 1006 (OK).]arrow_forwardFacts: On February 1, 2004, Buyer entered into a contract to buy Seller’s house in Las Vegas for $532,500 with a March closing date. On February 3, 2004 Seller notified Buyer that he was terminating the contract (without any legal basis for taking such action). The Seller then told Buyer that he would sell him the house for a higher price. On February 3, 2004, Buyer and Seller entered into a new contract for a price of $578,000. On February 16, 2004, the Seller refused to perform under the contract. The Buyer sued seeking to enforce the contract. Question: Under the common law of contracts, is the modification to the original contract enforceable? Deliverable: Write a clear, grammatically correct answer being sure to address the following points in your answer: Provide a clear statement of the governing legal principle (also called a ‘black letter law’). The ‘governing legal principle’ in any case is the legal principle that is the key to completing the legal analysis of the problem…arrow_forward
- Benigno Buyer writes Francene Farmer a letter that states he is willing to purchase 1,000 pounds of apples at a price of $.50 per pound. A. How can Francene accept this contract? B. If Francene writes back stating, “Your terms are agreeable, provided you purchase a minimum of 1,200 pounds of apples.” What is the effect of Francene’s statement? Will it matter whether or not Benigno is also a merchant? C. Assume that the wholesale price of apples is $1 per pound at the time that the offer is made. If Francene accepts it, will she be likely to successfully assert a defense of unconscionably if she later refuses to honor the contract’s terms?arrow_forwardHenry entered into a contract with Classic Motors to purchase a specific vehicle. The contract provided for a purchase price of $30,000.00 with a down payment of $10,000.00 and the balance of $20,000.00 on terms. Classic Motors was to repair the broken windshield and install a new CD player. Henry was to be notified once the work was completed so he could come and pick up the car. Classic Motors cashed the cheque and prepared the car as promised. Shortly before contacting Henry the car was stolen from the lot. Henry has demanded the return of his $10,000.00 down payment. What is the legal position of the parties?arrow_forwardOn 20th May, 2021, Mr. Qais offered to sell a camel for OMR 25,000 to Mr. Khalid through phone, for which Khalid agreed. On 23rd May, Khalid received the written and signed contract from Qais. Khalid signed it on 26th May, and then returned it to Qais on 27th May. When did a legally binding contract come into effect? O a. 20th May O b. 26th May O c 23rd May O d. 27th Mayarrow_forward
- a. true or false It is not necessary to prove a contract to sell land by a writing when both parties admit in court that they entered into a contract. b. true or false Consideration must be a bargained for legal benefit for both of the parties to the contract. c. true or false A contact exists and can be enforced even where one side's alleged consideration was a past un-bargained for act that benefited the other party.arrow_forward3 - A breach of contract occurs when either party violates the agreed upon promise. TrueFalsearrow_forwardDurham orally agreed to purchase certain computer hardware priced at $10,000 from Ted Stallings. The sale of the hardware also included a one-time setup service visit priced at $100. The total contract price amounted to $10,100. The computer hardware was delivered and set up, and Durham paid $10,100. Afterwards, Durham discovered that she could obtain the same goods and services from another seller for a total contract price of $9,100. She now seeks rescission of the contract, based on the fact that more than $500 in goods were involved in the sales transaction, that the contract between her and Stallings was subject to the statute of frauds as a result, and that the oral agreement between them was therefore unenforceable. Durham wants to return the computer hardware to Stallings, and receive reimbursement of $10,000 (She is willing to waive her claim to reimbursement for the $100 setup service visit.) Evaluate Durham’s legal position in this matter. HINT: Address both issues: (1)…arrow_forward
- Which one of the following is a term that is implied by statute? Select one: a. A term required to make the contract between the parties effective b. A term that goods must be of merchantable quality c. Good faith d. A term implied on the basis of past dealings between the partiesarrow_forwardCarl has a contract to supply Georgina with a gold necklace based on a design supplied by Georgina, to be delivered to Georgina on May 31. The contracted price is £500, payment due on delivery. On May 2, Carl contacted Georgina and mentioned that the price of gold had risen to such an extent that he would make a loss on the contract. On May 4 Carl contacted Georgina again and said: “I’m sorry Georgina but I’m running a business here not a charity. I can’t supply the necklace, I suggest you look for a different supplier”. Question Think whether or not Carl has committed an anticipatory or an actual breach, or indeed any breach at all. Do you remember what an anticipatory breach is? Question What are the TWO options open to Georgina in relation to the timing of taking action against Carl? Question Can you identify the common law remedies available to Georgina?arrow_forwardWong engages Chen as his agent to sell his house. Wong's brother tells Chen that Wong will sell the house for $500.000. A purchaser offers to buy the house for $510.000. Chen tells the purchaser, I can accept that offer on behalf of my client The purchaser obtains a bank loan to buy the house. When Wong finds out what Chen has done he is furious and refuses to accept the proposed sale agreement. Which of the following statements is true: (A) Wong is bound to sell the house to the purchaser for $510,000. (B) Wong is not bound by Chen's acceptance' because he did not authorize Chen to make any sale agreement on his behalf. (C) Wong's brother authorized Chen to accept the offer and therefore Wong is bound to sell the house to the purchaser for $510,000. (D) Chen is entitled to apply to the court for an order of specific performance compelling Wong to complete the contractarrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...ManagementISBN:9781305947412Author:Cliff RagsdalePublisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...ManagementISBN:9780135191798Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. LaudonPublisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134237473Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De CenzoPublisher:PEARSON
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134527604
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...
Management
ISBN:9781305947412
Author:Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...
Management
ISBN:9780135191798
Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...
Management
ISBN:9780134728391
Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134237473
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:PEARSON