admn390_ak - TRU Open Learning Answer Key to Practice Exam...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
TRU Open Learning Answer Key to Practice Exam ADMN 390 Business Law Answer Key to Practice Exam ADMN 390 Business Law 205619
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
ADMN 390: Business Law 9 Answer Key to Practice Exam The following are some possible answers to the questions in the practice exam. Where a subjective question is involved, these answers are only an example of an acceptable approach, and there are other ways to respond to the question. 1. The British Columbia Court of Appeal. 2. The new legislation will be followed. Parliament is supreme, thus an act of Parliament or the legislature will override any prior case law or rule of equity that is in conflict. 3. No. In fact, no imprisonment had taken place here, since Mr. Callan ran out of the store before being apprehended. However, Mr. Callan could sue for defamation (slander) since he was wrongly called a thief in front of other people. 4. A letter of revocation will take effect only when it has been received by the person to whom it is sent. The postbox rule applies only to an acceptance, nothing else. 5. Yes. Mrs. Jones could be sued successfully for breach of contract. The initial offer was made by letter; therefore, it is appropriate for the acceptance also to be sent through the post. The postbox rule applies, and the acceptance is effective as soon as that letter of acceptance is dropped in the mailbox. Since a contract existed from that point, Mrs. Jones’s attempt at revocation of the offer was made too late to be effective. Annie can sue Mrs. Jones for breach of contract and will win. 6. To escape liability for a contract, a person must show all of the following: The person was too intoxicated to understand the nature and consequences of the act he or she performed. The person he or she was dealing with was aware or should have been aware that the other party was intoxicated. The person who was drunk repudiated the agreement as soon as reasonably possible upon becoming sober. The item contracted for is a non necessity. An intoxicated person is liable to pay a reasonable price for necessities. TRU Open Learning
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
10 Answer Key to Practice Exam 7. Remedies are available as follows: Where there is innocent misrepresentation, the purchaser can only demand rescission (the return of the parties to their original positions). Where something has happened to make rescission impossible (for example, the property involved has been destroyed), this remedy is not available. Where there has been fraudulent misrepresentation, the purchaser has the right to sue for damages based on the tort of deceit in addition to the right of rescission. So even where rescission is not available, the purchaser can still demand monetary compensation for any losses suffered. 8.
Background image of page 4
Image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 8

admn390_ak - TRU Open Learning Answer Key to Practice Exam...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online