BUSINESSLAW CHAPTER 19 - Business Law

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
FEBRUARY 2009 BUSINESS LAW CHAPTER 19 DEBRA BARONE 1. No, he is not discharged. McMullen must perform the contract, even though it has been made more expensive because of the change of law. The change of law did not prohibit the construction of the building, but made it more expensive to build. In this case the change of law does not make the job impossible. 2. Badcock used the defense of accord and satisfaction. When there was a dispute over the settlement amount, Mitchell accepted the disputed calculations as the amount owed him (accord) and executed the transfer documents and received payment (the satisfaction). 3. No, the defense was not valid. Since the accord was never satisfied, Federal Deposit retained its rights against defendants under their unlimited guaranties. They had the right to return to the original agreement. 4. No, because the contract did not state it was made dependent on Samet. Therefore, her death can not discharge the contract.
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

BUSINESSLAW CHAPTER 19 - Business Law

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