Eva And Sheena Case Summary
Additional Problem #7
Judgement for Eva. In this scenario, Maria has the legal obligations to pay back Eva the remaining sum of $15,000. In the contract, it states that Maria has to pay $75,000 for the service. Thus, she has the pre-existing legal obligation to pay Eva in full.
Judgement for Eva. In this scenario, though she accepted the check, Eva indicated that it was “under protest”. Because there was a written contract that indicated that a debt of $75,000 has to be paid for the decorating service, it is considered as a liquidated debt and accord and satisfaction does not occur. Maria has the legal obligation to pay the full debt, although she wrote on the check “payment in full for decorating service”.
Judgement for Eva. Although Eva and Maria decided in their conversation that the debt was $60,000 for the full decorating service, there was no written promise or contract that she will discharge the debt. On the contract signed by both the debtor and the creditor, the debt would be $75,000 for the decorating service. The debtor, Maria, must pay $75,000 in full. Thus, Eva has the right to sue for the remanding $15,000. …show more content…
Additional Problem #10
Judgment against Armand.
Armand was bound under contract to work as chef at the resort for 3 months at the compensation of $50,000. The promised bonus of $20,000 isn't valid because there isn’t a bargain for consideration. Regardless of whether Armand gets the bonus, Armand still has to work at the resort for 3 months. If Armand quits during the 3 months period, then the Scallop can sue Armand for breach of
contract.
Additional Problem #14 Bob has the right to disaffirm his contract with Ace Motor because any contract can be disaffirmed within a reasonable time after the minor, Bob, reach the age of majority, on his 18th birthday. Bob can return the car, however he will be responsible for the damages and depreciation of the car. Ace Motor has to accept the disaffirmance by Bob. However, Ace Motors may keep the $3,000 because it is used to compensate for the depreciation of the car.
Chapter #13
Additional Problem #13
The oral agreement between Alvin and Courtney is enforceable. Under the one-year rule, an oral contract is enforceable depending on whether the performance of the contract is possible within a year. Courtney has to perform advisory service for a year for $15,000 per month. It is possible for Courtney to perform it, therefore the oral contract be enforced without a written contract.
The oral agreement between Alvin and Francine is enforceable for the first year, but not the second year. As mentioned before, under the one-year rule, an oral contract is enforceable depending on whether the performance of the contract is possible within a year. It is possible for Francine to remodel and rewire the office in a year. However if Francine wasn’t able to complete it on time, there must be a written contract for the oral agreement to be enforceable.
Additional Problem #17
Judgment for Burrow. Although Study sent a contract to Burrow about terms and agreements about the contract, only Study is held accountable for the oral agreement. Study can not enforce the agreement against Burrow because Burrow did not sign the contract. Because he did not sign or enter a written contract, only Burrow is allowed to plead Statute of Frauds.
Judgment for Study. Because both Study and Burrow are merchants, Study does not need to make a written contract signed by Burrow for the oral contract to be enforced. Study has written a contract that confirmed all of the termed stated in their oral contract. This is sufficient evidence to enforce their contract under the UCC.
Judgement for Eva. In this scenario, Maria has the legal obligations to pay back Eva the remaining sum of $15,000. In the contract, it states that Maria has to pay $75,000 for the service. Thus, she has the pre-existing legal obligation to pay Eva in full.
Judgement for Eva. In this scenario, though she accepted the check, Eva indicated that it was “under protest”. Because there was a written contract that indicated that a debt of $75,000 has to be paid for the decorating service, it is considered as a liquidated debt and accord and satisfaction does not occur. Maria has the legal obligation to pay the full debt, although she wrote on the check “payment in full for decorating service”.
Judgement for Eva. Although Eva and Maria decided in their conversation that the debt was $60,000 for the full decorating service, there was no written promise or contract that she will discharge the debt. On the contract signed by both the debtor and the creditor, the debt would be $75,000 for the decorating service. The debtor, Maria, must pay $75,000 in full. Thus, Eva has the right to sue for the remanding $15,000. …show more content…
Additional Problem #10
Judgment against Armand.
Armand was bound under contract to work as chef at the resort for 3 months at the compensation of $50,000. The promised bonus of $20,000 isn't valid because there isn’t a bargain for consideration. Regardless of whether Armand gets the bonus, Armand still has to work at the resort for 3 months. If Armand quits during the 3 months period, then the Scallop can sue Armand for breach of
contract.
Additional Problem #14 Bob has the right to disaffirm his contract with Ace Motor because any contract can be disaffirmed within a reasonable time after the minor, Bob, reach the age of majority, on his 18th birthday. Bob can return the car, however he will be responsible for the damages and depreciation of the car. Ace Motor has to accept the disaffirmance by Bob. However, Ace Motors may keep the $3,000 because it is used to compensate for the depreciation of the car.
Chapter #13
Additional Problem #13
The oral agreement between Alvin and Courtney is enforceable. Under the one-year rule, an oral contract is enforceable depending on whether the performance of the contract is possible within a year. Courtney has to perform advisory service for a year for $15,000 per month. It is possible for Courtney to perform it, therefore the oral contract be enforced without a written contract.
The oral agreement between Alvin and Francine is enforceable for the first year, but not the second year. As mentioned before, under the one-year rule, an oral contract is enforceable depending on whether the performance of the contract is possible within a year. It is possible for Francine to remodel and rewire the office in a year. However if Francine wasn’t able to complete it on time, there must be a written contract for the oral agreement to be enforceable.
Additional Problem #17
Judgment for Burrow. Although Study sent a contract to Burrow about terms and agreements about the contract, only Study is held accountable for the oral agreement. Study can not enforce the agreement against Burrow because Burrow did not sign the contract. Because he did not sign or enter a written contract, only Burrow is allowed to plead Statute of Frauds.
Judgment for Study. Because both Study and Burrow are merchants, Study does not need to make a written contract signed by Burrow for the oral contract to be enforced. Study has written a contract that confirmed all of the termed stated in their oral contract. This is sufficient evidence to enforce their contract under the UCC.