Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
JANUARY 31, 2009 BUSINESS LAW CHAPTER 15 DEBRA BARONE 1. No. Because Sarah was under a moral obligation to pay Odessa, it does not bind her to it. 2. This was a famous case in1891. The court decided in favor of William II because it was a case of forbearance; William II refrained from doing the things his uncle asked of him. 3. Yes. The employment agreement was binding . 4. Stan prepared Charles’s tax return and was paid. The additional $400 does not have to be paid because there was no consideration. 5. No, this defense is not valid. 6. 7. Yes. There was a failure of consideration when Proudfoot promised to make a system that would save money. Sanitary Linen was entitled to get its money paid to Proudfoot back. 8. No. Promissory estoppel did not prevent Sears from terminating the contract. Because Sears had actually employed Forrer, they could terminate him at will. There is no way to foresee if an employee will “work out”. 9.
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/22/2011 for the course FINANCE BUSINESS L taught by Professor Daviddubois during the Spring '09 term at SUNY Empire State.

Page1 / 2


This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

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