This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: efused. Kay claimed that there was no consideration for the
promise. Hammer would prevail against Kay based on
307. Ken promises not to foreclose on a mortgage that he holds on an office complex that Christopher
owns. In reliance on this promise, Christopher expends $200,000 to remodel the complex.
Which of the following is correct with regard to Ken’s promise?
Ken’s promise is not to foreclose is unsupported by consideration.
Ken’s promise is noncontractual.
Ken’s promise will be enforced against him based upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
All of the above. 308. Kent, a 16-year-old, purchased a used car from Mint Motors, Inc. Ten months later, the car was
stolen and never recovered. Which of the following statements is correct?
The car’s theft is a de facto ratification of the purchase because it is impossible to return the car.
Kent may disaffirm the purchase because Kent is a minor.
Kent effectively ratified the purchase because Kent used the car for an unreasonable period of
Kent may disaffirm...
View Full Document
- Fall '12
- The Lottery