Details of this Paper

ed Owl Stores, Inc induced the Hoffman




1) Red Owl Stores, Inc induced the Hoffmans to give up their current successful;business to run a Red Owl Franchise. Although no contract was ever signed, the;Hoffmans incurred numerous expenses in excess of $5,000 based on Red Owls;representations. When the deal ultimately fell through because of Red Owls failure to;keep its promise concerning the operation of the franchise agency store, the;Hoffmans brought suit to recover their losses from the business they left behind and;their out of pocket expenses on the Red Owl project. Will the Hoffmans recover any or;all of their money?;A) No, the Hoffmans cannot recover anything because the Statute of Frauds should;apply.;B) No, because the business they left behind was not part of the contract with Red;Owl.;C) Yes, the can recover everything under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.;D) Yes, they can recover their out of pocket expenses on the Red Owl project because;they relied to their detriment on Red Owl.;2. Owens, a federal prisoner, was transferred from federal prison to the Nassau;County Jail pursuant to a contract between the U.S. Bureau of Prisons and the;county. The contract included a policy statement that required the receiving prison to;provide for the safekeeping and protection of the transferred federal prisoners. While;in the Nassau County Jail, Owens was beaten severely by prison guards and suffered;lacerations, bruises, and a lasting impairment that caused blackouts. Can Owens, as;a third party beneficiary, sue the county for breach of its agreement with the U.S.;Bureau of Prisons?;A) Yes, because the intention to benefit a third party may be gleaned from the;contract as a whole.;B) No, because while the contract implies the intention to benefit a third party it does;not specifically identify which party.;C) Yes, because the contract was made to benefit third parties and it is not necessary;to identify the third party.;D) No, because Owen was a mere incidental beneficiary to the contract.;3) Patricia Aiken suffered a heart attack and was hospitalized at Phoenix Baptist;Hospital and Medical Center, Inc. Later she passed away. At the time of her;admission, the Aikens told the hospital that they did not have the money to pay for;medical care. At the same time, Patricias husband, Thomas, signed an agreement to;pay her medical expenses. He did not read what he signed, no one explained the;agreement and he later claimed that he was so upset that he couldnt remember;signing anything. When the bills were not paid, the hospital filed suit. Will the Aikens;have to pay the hospital?;A) Yes, because the hospital relied on the signed agreement and performed.;B) No, because while there was a written agreement the performance resulted in Mrs.;Aikens demise.;C) Yes, because even though the hospital was aware of the Aikens lack of funds, Mr.;Aiken should have known when he took his wife to the hospital that they did not give;care for free.;D) No, because the agreement was an adhesion contract obtained under;circumstances that made it unenforceable and it was not explained to him at the time;by the hospital.;4) Steven Lanci was involved in an automobile accident with an uninsured;motorist. Lanci was insured with Metropolitan Insurance Co., although he did not;have a copy of the insurance policy. Lanci told Metropolitan that he did not have a;copy of the policy and entered into negotiations with them in the meantime.;Ultimately Lanci settled for $15,000, noting in a letter to Metropolitan that this was the;sum you represented to be thepolicy limits applicable to the claim. After signing a;release, Lanci learned that the policy limits were actually $250,000 and he refused to;accept the settlement proceeds. Lanci argued that the release had been signed as a;result of a mistake and therefore is unenforceable. Should the court enforce the;contract?;A) Yes, because Lanci as a reasonable person should have known what the policy;limits were.;B) Yes, because Lanci entered into the negotiations knowing that he did not have a;copy of the policy and he assumed the risk of being unprepared.;C) No, because ethically Metropolitan should have given him another copy before the;negotiations.;D) No, because Metropolitan knew the policy limits, knew that Lanci thought them to;be $15,000 and that he entered into the contract because of that mistake of a material;fact.;5) Southard was stranded in Hawaii as a result of an airline strike. He had purchased;a round trip ticket before leaving his home in Denver. He sued the union for tortuous;interference with his contract with airline and sought to recover the additional;expense he incurred on another airline. Was the union liable to Mr. Southward?;A) The union was liable because they were the proximate cause of Mr. Southward's;need to spend additional monies to return home.;B) The union was liable because they intentionally tried to prevent Mr. Southward;from returning home.;C) The union is not liable because the strike was legal and therefore one of the;permitted interferences with a contractual or business relationship.;D) Both A and B;6) Glen Grove brought a 1936 Pontiac from Bernard Stanfield. Stanfield signed the;certificate of title, which stated that the car was sold for $1,000. No other terms of sale;were mentioned in the certificate, and none were incorporated by reference. Three years;later, Stanfield filed suit against Grove in a Missouri State Court, claiming that Grove still;owed $9,000 for the price of the car. At trial, Stanfield testified that he and Grove had an;oral agreement by which Grove was to pay $1,000 for the title document and $9,000 for;the actual car. The court entered a judgment for Stanfield. What will happen on appeal?;A) The court will uphold the entrance of the parole evidence and keep the verdict for;Stanfield intact.;B) The court will uphold the verdict for Stanfield because the writing was not sufficient;enough to constitute a written contract so oral evidence can be heard to explain the;terms of the agreement.;C) The court will overturn the verdict of the lower court because the title is a legally;sufficient document to form a contract. Oral evidence should not be allowed to amend;the terms of the contract.;D) The court will overturn the verdict because any reasonable person would have not;turned the title over to someone else without getting all his money. Giving more money;to Stanfield would unjustly enrich him.;7) John Agosta and his brother Salvatore had formed a corporation, but disagreements;between the two brothers caused John to petition for voluntary dissolution of the;corporation. According to the dissolution agreement, the total assets of the corporation;which included a warehouse and inventory, would be split between the two brothers by;Salvatores selling his stock to John for $500,000. The agreement was approved, but;shortly before payment was made, a fire destroyed the warehouse and inventory which;were the major assets of the corporation. John refused to pay Salvatore the $500,000;and Salvatore brought suit against him for breach of contract. Will John win?;A) Yes, because the value of the stock he is purchasing is not worth $500,000 anymore;due to the fire.;B) Yes, because the court cannot require him to specifically perform to Salvatores unjust;enrichment.;C) No, because the agreement was for the sale of stock not a functional business.;D) No, The subject matter of the agreement, the shares of stock was not destroyed in the;fire. The doctrine of impossibility of performance does not apply and John cannot avoid;his contract.;8) Southeast Shipping Company challenges an Alabama statute, claiming that it;unlawfully interferes with interstate commerce. A court will likely;a) balance Alabama's interest in regulating against the burden on interstate commerce.;b) balance the burden on Alabama against the merit and purpose of interstate commerce;c) strike the statute.;d) uphold the statute.;9) Vern, the security guard for WiFi Communications, detains Yao, a customer, whom;Vern suspects of shoplifting. This is false imprisonment if;a) Vern detains Yao for an unreasonably long time.;b) Yao did not shoplift.;c) Yao has probable cause to suspect Vern of deceit.;d) Yao protests her innocence;10) Nu Produx Inc (NPI) agrees to sell 100 cell phones to MYTALK Cell Service. NPI;identifies the goods by marking the crate with red stripes. Before the crate is shipped, an;insurable interest exists in;a) not NPI or MyTalk.;b) NPI and My Talk.;c) NPI only.;d) MyTalk only.;Additional Requirements;Level of Detail: Show all work;Other Requirements: you have to explain why the multiple choice answer is correct. please use laws in you explanation of each multiple choice.


Paper#17865 | Written in 18-Jul-2015

Price : $37