Accounting
Anthropology
Archaeology
Art History
Banking
Biology & Life Science
Business
Business Communication
Business Development
Business Ethics
Business Law
Chemistry
Communication
Computer Science
Counseling
Criminal Law
Curriculum & Instruction
Design
Earth Science
Economic
Education
Engineering
Finance
History & Theory
Humanities
Human Resource
International Business
Investments & Securities
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Medicine
Medicine & Health Science
Nursing
Philosophy
Physic
Psychology
Real Estate
Science
Social Science
Sociology
Special Education
Speech
Visual Arts
Question
Useless Friend. Charles, who is very gullible, is friend with Bobby. Bobby, who cannot be trusted, decides to try to bind Charles to a contract in Bobby's favor. Bobby has Charles sign a contract promising to wash Bobby's car once a week for a month for $80. The contract incorporated by reference terms on the back. The terms on the back were in very small print and required Charles for one year to cook dinner for Bobby, do his laundry, and clean his apartment. Bobby is also very angry with his former girlfriend, Tessa, and decides to start rumors, that would constitute the tort of defamation, such as that she has a vile disease, cheated on tests, and stole from friends. Bobby wants to enlist the help of Charles but knows that Charles would be hesitant to assist in his endeavors. One evening, however, Charles drank too much beer and was clearly intoxicated - a fact apparent to Bobby. Bobby had him sign a contract agreeing to defame Tessa for $50. When he sobers up, Charles tells Bobby that he was drunk and that he has no intention of defaming Tessa, who also happens to be Charles' new girlfriend. He also finally takes a look at the contract involving work for Bobby and tells Bobby that the contract is outrageous and that he has no intentions of going through with any of it. Which of the following is true under the Restatement of Contracts, Section 16, regarding the claim of Charles that he should be able to avoid the contract involving Tessa because he was intoxicated?
A. Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable by the intoxicant if the other party had reason to know that because of the intoxicated person's condition, that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.
B. Contracts of an intoxicated person are void if the other party had reason to know that because of the intoxicated person's condition, that person was unable to understand the nature and consequences of the transaction or was unable to act in a reasonable manner in relation to the transaction.
C. Contracts of an intoxicated person are enforceable because a person should be bound by his or her actions.
D. Contracts of an intoxicated person are void only if it can be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the abuse of alcohol by the intoxicated person.
E. Contracts of an intoxicated person are voidable by the intoxicant only if it can be proven that the other party was involved in encouraging the abuse of alcohol by the intoxicated person.
Answer
This answer is hidden. It contains 312 characters.
Related questions
Q:
If a legal contract is formed and the subject of the contract then becomes illegal under a new statute, the contract is _____.
A. discharged
B. enforced
C. disregarded
D. executed
E. executory
Q:
Which of the following was the result in John Miller v. Jay Preefer, Richard Preefer, Comproised Management, Inc., and Palm Beach Ale House and Raw Bar Inc., the case in the text involving Florida law in which the plaintiff claimed that a covenant not to compete in regard to the restaurant business entered into in conjunction with a settlement agreement was unenforceable as a violation of public policy?
A. That Florida law provides for enforceability of covenants not to compete under specific circumstances including when entered into as part of a settlement agreement.
B. That all covenants not to compete, including the one at issue, were illegal under Florida law.
C. That Florida law enforces all covenants not to compete.
D. That the covenant not to compete was illegal only because the time constraint was excessive.
E. That the plaintiff waited too long to sue after the final judgment incorporating the covenant not to compete and that the covenant not to compete was, therefore, enforceable.
Q:
Guardians may be appointed for which of the following?
A. Only those who are adjudicated insane.
B. Only those who are adjudicated habitual drunkards.
C. Only those whose judgment has been impaired because of a condition such as Alzheimer's.
D. Those who are adjudicated insane or those whose judgment has been impaired because of a condition such as Alzheimer's, but not those who are adjudicated habitual drunkards.
E. Those who are adjudicated insane, those whose judgment has been impaired because of a condition such as Alzheimer's, and also those who are adjudicated habitual drunkards.
Q:
Historically, which of the following were considered people with limited or no capacity?
A. Minors and married women
B. Insane persons, single women, and minors
C. Single women over 18 and insane persons
D. Minors and insane persons
E. Minors, insane persons, and married women
Q:
A person who has the legal ability to enter into a binding contract has _____.
A. capacity
B. understanding
C. ratification
D. history
E. consideration
Q:
The legal ability to enter into a binding contract is _____.
A. disaffirmance
B. capacity
C. ratification
D. usury
E. a covenant not to compete
Q:
A ratification must be expressed in order to be legally valid.
Q:
Traditionally, if Sam, who is 17 years old, purchases a television from a store, signs a 11-month contract, and then drops it on the way home, Sam could return the television and be entitled to the return of his down payment.
Q:
Frank is building a home for Debby that under the original contract is to be completed by December 31st. Debby found the plans for the home in a publication focusing on unique houses and is excited because it will be the only home of its type in the area. Because he underestimated the time needed for special and unique framing required for Debby's house, Frank tells Debby that he needs to hire additional workers in order to have the home done by that time and that she needs to pay him an extra $10,000. Debby says that she will pay. Frank finishes the home and asks for his $10,000. Debby refuses to pay. What is the likely result if Frank sues? Discuss whether you believe the result is ethical and equitable.
Q:
Marcy's Mom. Marcy's mother, Sue, did not want her to date until she was older. She also wanted Marcy to attend law school. Just before Marcy started her freshman year in college, Sue told Marcy that if Marcy would refrain from dating until she received her law degree, then Sue would pay off all Marcy's school loans and throw in an extra $50,000. Marcy agrees and states, "Thanks, Mom, and by the way, when I graduate I'm throwing you a big party for all you've done for me!" Sue smiles and hugs Marcy. Marcy finished law school and asked for payment of her loans, the $50,000 in cash, and for a car. Sue said, "No way - I know you went out on some dates during law school, and I never agreed on the car." Marcy said those were just study nights and that her mother had never objected to Marcy's frequent statements that she wanted a car upon graduation. Sue asks about the party. Marcy tells her that she is nuts because there is no way Marcy can afford a party since Sue has backed out of the deal. After some serious negotiation Marcy and Sue settled their dispute with Sue agreeing to pay for half of Marcy's school loans and for all the expenses of Marcy's upcoming wedding, and to forget about Marcy throwing a party for her. What type of alleged debt was involved in the dispute between Marcy and Sue involving the school loans, additional funds, car, and party?
A. Liquidated
B. Unliquidated
C. Supported
D. Unsupported
E. Liquidated in relation to the school loans, additional funds, and car; and unsupported in relation to the party.
Q:
Bank Robbery. Victor robbed Safe Bank of a significant sum of cash. Safe Bank offered a reward of $10,000 for anyone who captured or provided information leading to the capture of Victor. Ted, a police officer in town, promised Safe Bank officials that he would apprehend Victor. While on duty, Ted arrested Victor at a hamburger joint in town. He found Victor based upon a hunch he had after Ursula, who dated Victor, told him about various places Victor enjoyed eating. The bank refuses to pay either Ursula or Ted any of the reward money. In a lawsuit between the bank and Ursula, regarding the reward funds, who is likely to prevail and why?
A. The bank is likely to prevail because Ursula only provided past consideration.
B. The bank is likely to prevail because Ursula was tainted by being Victor's girlfriend.
C. The bank is likely to prevail because no valid bilateral contract existed.
D. Ursula is likely to prevail because a valid bilateral contract existed.
E. Ursula is likely to prevail because an enforceable unilateral contract exists based on her provision of information leading to the capture of Victor.
Q:
Garage sale. Richard, who is cleaning out his garage, offers to sell Dawn a used computer for $200. Dawn replies that "I'll think about it and buy it if I decide to do so." Richard also calls Denise and offers to give Denise a used business law book. She is excited to receive the book and tells him that she will pick it up the next day. Richard also agrees to sell a communications book for $50 to Jill who promises to pick it up the next day. Meanwhile, Sam comes to visit, offers Richard $20 for the business law book and Richard sells it to him. Sam also offers Richard $50 for the used computer. Richard sells it to Sam because he does not expect to hear from Dawn. Sam sees the communications book and offers Richard $60 for it. Richard decides to forget about Jill and proceeds to sell the book to Sam for $60. Denise is very angry because Richard did not save the book for her and claims that he breached a contract because she had accepted his offer. Jill is also angry because Richard sold the communications book and informs him that he breached the contract he had with her. Exactly 31 days later, Dawn tells Richard that she would like the computer. She tells him that her response constituted consideration in that it bound him to an option contract and that he should have awaited her final decision. Richard tells Sam that he needs to return everything for a full refund. Sam refuses. Which of the following is true regarding the dispute between Richard and Sam regarding whether Sam must return anything?
A. Sam must return the computer only.
B. Sam must return the business law book only.
C. Sam must return the communications book only.
D. Sam must return the computer, the business law book, and the communications book.
E. Sam does not legally have to return anything.
Q:
A new agreement to pay less than the creditor claims is owed is called a(n) _______.
A. satisfaction
B. accord
C. both satisfaction and accord
D. written compromise
E. written acknowledgement
Q:
In a(n) ______ debt, the parties either dispute the fact that any money is owed or agree that some money is owed but dispute the amount.
A. disputed
B. unacknowledged
C. uncertain
D. liquidated
E. unliquidated
Q:
In a(n) ______ debt, there is no dispute about the fact that money is owed and the amount of money owed.
A. actual
B. acknowledged
C. certain
D. liquidated
E. unliquidated
Q:
Courtney, who does not keep up with the price of current technology, agrees to buy a used computer from Jake for $2,500. Later, Brice tells Courtney that she made a really bad deal and that she could get an even better new computer for no more than $1,000. Courtney tells Jake that she is not giving him any money because he was not fair with her. Which of the following is the most likely result if Jake sues Courtney alleging breach of contract?
A. Brice will win only if he can establish that Brice is wrong and that the deal was actually reasonable.
B. Brice will win because the court would not weigh whether a good bargain was made.
C. Courtney will win if she can establish that she paid at least 75% more than the computer was actually worth.
D. Courtney will win if she can establish that she paid at least 50% more than the computer was actually worth.
E. Courtney will win if she can establish that she made a bad deal and that truly she was not aware of current prices of computers.
Q:
In Hamer v. Sidway, the New York Court of Appeals found that forbearance:
A. Negates the enforceability of a contract.
B. Is not mandatory for a contract to be binding.
C. Is unconstitutional.
D. Is sufficient consideration for a valid contract.
E. Is insufficient consideration for a valid contract.
Q:
In a bilateral contract, the consideration for each promise is ______.
A. a completed act
B. the beginning of action in acceptance, even if it is not complete
C. an acknowledgement
D. a return promise
E. an agreement
Q:
DUI Charge. Monique was licensed to train massage therapists. A new federal agency, the Aesthetic and Massage Commission, took very seriously its role of enforcing the statute enabling the Commission to do its work and providing that licensed massage therapists must refrain from "any act or conduct indicating bad faith, incompetence, dishonesty, or improper dealing." Monique, while driving home late one night from a party, was stopped by the police and arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. She pled guilty to the offense. When the Aesthetic and Massage Commission discovered the offense, the officials of the agency met, decided that Monique might drink on the job, and that she might pose a danger to students. Accordingly, her license to teach massage therapy was revoked. Monique threatened to sue to retain her license and was told by the agency head that she had no right to appeal to court because of the nature of the Aesthetic and Massage Commission; and that, in any event, action by an agency is always upheld. Which of the following is true regarding the statement of the agency that Monique had no right to appeal to court?
A. The agency representative was wrong; and if Monique cannot resolve the issue within the agency, she may appeal to court for judicial review.
B. Because the agency was set up to protect the safety of the public, the agency representative is correct unless Monique can establish that she entered into a separate contractual arrangement with the agency when she was hired that gave her the right to appeal decisions to court.
C. Further information is needed regarding whether the agency was an executive agency or an independent agency because while actions of an independent agency may be appealed to court, actions of an executive agency may not be appealed to court.
D. Further information is needed regarding whether the agency was an executive agency or an independent agency because while actions of an executive agency may be appealed to court, actions of an independent agency may not be appealed to court.
E. Because the agency was set up to protect the safety of the public, the agency representative is correct; and Monique has no right to a court action and no right to enter into a contractual agreement with the agency regarding appeal rights.
Q:
Under the Privacy Act, an individual may have the right to:
A. see federal agency records about themselves.
B. to amend an inaccurate agency record.
C. to sue the government for statute violations.
D. see and amend federal agency records.
E. see and amend federal agency records as well as sue the government for statute violations.
Q:
Which of the following is false regarding the Freedom of Information Act?
A. Information may be obtained under the act regarding how an agency gets and spends its money.
B. Citizens are entitled to any records that the government has about them.
C. Records involving national security are exempted from the act.
D. Information regarding the agency's personnel records may be obtained under the act.
E. Records involving an individual's private life are exempted from the act.
Q:
In order to be upheld in court, an agency's fact finding must be supported by which of the following?
A. Substantial evidence
B. A rational basis
C. Any evidence
D. Reasonable evidence
E. Non-hearsay evidence
Q:
Executive agencies are referred to as which of the following?
A. Judicial-level agencies
B. Adjudicative agencies
C. Cabinet-level agencies
D. Approval agencies
E. Presidential agencies
Q:
What do the initials ALJ represent in the administrative law arena?
A. Administrative Legal Journal
B. Agency Legal Jargon
C. Administrative Law Judge
D. Agency Legal Judge
E. Agency Law Jurisprudence
Q:
Which of the following is an order issued by an agency to appear at a particular time and place and bring specified documents?
A. A subpoena
B. A subpoena duces tecum
C. A summons
D. A summons duces tecum
E. A required documented appearance
Q:
Which of the following is an order issued by an agency to appear at a particular time and place and provide testimony?
A. A subpoena
B. A subpoena duces tecum
C. A summons
D. A summons duces tecum
E. A required documented appearance
Q:
According to the text, what are three criticisms of arbitration when compared to traditional litigation?
Q:
In order to ensure that a case or controversy exists, the plaintiff must show:
A. An adverse relationship between the parties.
B. An actual legal dispute.
C. It is a proper matter for judicial determination.
D. An adverse relationship between the parties and an actual legal dispute.
E. An adverse relationship between the parties, an actual legal dispute, and it is a proper matter for judicial determination.
Q:
A court acquires in personam jurisdiction over the plaintiff when:
A. Service of process is issued.
B. Plaintiff is given a copy of the complaint by the court.
C. Plaintiff files a lawsuit with the court.
D. Defendant files an answer.
E. Plaintiff is injured within the state's border.
Q:
Puppy Woes. Sam promised to sell Linda a Welsh Corgi puppy for $300 but backed out of the deal. Linda sued Sam in state court for breach of contract. Linda asked for a jury in her complaint. During jury selection, one juror, Ann, said that they did not think they could be fair to Linda because Linda did not appear to be a dog lover. Linda asked that Ann not hear the case, and the judge excused Ann. Linda also decided that another juror, Sandy, looked at her in a grumpy manner so she asked the judge to excuse that juror from serving. The judge did so. After the jury was chosen, Linda made a statement to the jury, as did Sam. Linda then called to the witness stand a friend of hers, Brenda, who heard the discussion held between Linda and Sam regarding the purchase of the puppy. Brenda testified under questioning by Linda that she heard Linda say that she would pay $300 for the puppy and that she also heard Sam say that he would sell the dog for that amount. Unfortunately for Linda, Brenda also testified in response to questioning by Sam that Sam distinctly told Linda that he would only sell the puppy to her if Linda came with cash for the puppy within seven days. Linda did not show up with the money for ten days and Sam had already sold the dog to someone else. The judge ruled in favor of Sam. The challenge to the juror who seemed grumpy is referred to as a(n)
A. Peremptory challenge.
B. Challenge for cause.
C. Stipulated challenge.
D. Fairness challenge.
E. Approved challenge.