Study with Quizlet and memorize flashcards containing terms like Julius asks Rachel if she would like to sell her boat. Rachel privately has no interest in selling her boat, and believes that Julius can't afford her boat anyway. Rachel says, "I'd sell my boat to you for $400." To Rachel's surprise, Julius responds "Ok, it's a deal." Rachel does not want to sell the boat to Julius for any price.
10–7. Implied contracts. Ralph ramsey insured his car with allstate insurance co. He also owned a house on which he maintained a homeowner's insurance - 13673168
Business Law Today, Standard (10th Edition) Edit edition Solutions for Chapter 16 Problem 2BCP: Question with Sample Answer—Anticipatory Repudiation. Moore contracted in writing to sell her 2010 Hyundai Santa Fe to Hammer for $16,500. Moore agreed to deliver the car on Wednesday, and Hammer promised to pay the $16,500 on the following Friday.
The Legal Environment of Business (9th Edition) Edit edition Solutions for Chapter 9 Problem 6BCP: Implied Contracts. Ralph Ramsey insured his car with Allstate Insurance Co. He also owned a house on which he maintained a homeowner’s insurance policy with Allstate.
This is because such a covenant would unreasonably restrain trade and be contrary to public policy.
When both parties to the contract are merchants, the additional terms become part of their contract unless (1) the original offer expressly required acceptance of its terms, (2) the new or changed terms materially alter the contract, or (3) the offeror rejects the new or changed terms within a reasonable time.
Moore's refusal to deliver the car to Hammer on Friday, when Hammer tendered the $8,500 to Moore, constituted a breach of their contract. Moore could have canceled the contract on Hammer's anticipatory breach but did not do so and did not change her position in any way as a result of Hammer's anticipatory breach.
Yes, Dan can be held liable for the amount of the debt owed to Flying Cat. Even after a partnership has been dissolved, a partner may still bind the firm by engaging in a transaction that would have bound the partnership if it had not been dissolved, provided the other party to the transaction had known of the partnership before dissolution and had no knowledge or notice of the dissolution.In this problem, the Coles operated their business as a partnership during their marriage. The partnership was dissolved by the parties' divorce, but Dan could be held liable under the extension of the lease entered into by Lori alone after the divorce. The lease fell within the scope of the former partnership's business. The lease was executed with the authority that would have bound the firm if it had not been dissolved. And the landlord did not have notice that the Coles, who had held themselves out as partners during the previous lease terms, had dissolved their partnership.In the actual case on which this problem is based, in the landlord's suit to collect on the judgment, the court ruled in Flying Cat's favor. Dan appealed, claiming that he was not liable. A state intermediate appellate court held that he was—although the partnership was dissolved when the couple divorced, the landlord had no notice of the dissolution.