BUSINESSLAW CHAPTER 32 - Business law

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
MARCH 2009 BUSINESS LAW CHAPTER 32 DEBRA BARONE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND CASE PROBLEMS 1. 2. No, this is not correct. The bond assured Jackson that she would be protected if Kiernan failed to construct the house. They were obligated to pay her and she did not have to sue Kiernan first. 3. Yes, she is correct. Her promise was specific to her business only. 4. The court found in favor of Fern Schimke. The bank gave her no separate consideration in return for the guarantee. So, she was not liable. 5. No, because the surety is there in the first place because there can be a bankruptcy. 6. Yes, because the original note was changed without his consent. 7. The court found in favor of Gilbert. The additional $600 to the guarantee represented a change to the terms of the note. Because the surety did not consent to this, the surety is not liable. 8. 9. Citibank cannot pay this LOC. A bank can only pay according to the terms of the LOC. The fifteen days had passed, documents were incomplete and
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.

Page1 / 2

BUSINESSLAW CHAPTER 32 - 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