How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Ellen Your Own Question
Ellen
Ellen, Lawyer
Category: Homework
Satisfied Customers: 36714
Experience:  Lawyer, Accountant and Researcher
9968427
Type Your Homework Question Here...
Ellen is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

1.Javier gives written authorization to Tamara to sell his

This answer was rated:

1.Javier gives written authorization to Tamara to sell his house. Javier dies on the October 4. On October 8, Tamara enters into a written contract on behalf of Javier to sell the house to Trudy for $100,000. Before Tamara entered into the contract, she showed the written authorization to Trudy. Javier's estate is
A. liable if Tamara knew Javier was deceased at the time of the contract.
B. liable if the price is fair.
C. not liable.
D. obligated to sell for $100,000 because Tamara had express authority.

2.Phil receives a job offer from Big Tech, Inc., in a letter that states, "If you leave your current position and join us, we will employ you for the next five years as our company expands." Phil takes the job, and he is fired after six months even though his work was satisfactory. If Phil sues and wins, the most likely reason is
A. express contract.
B. the state's right-to-work law.
C. the employment at-will doctrine.
D. promissory estoppel

3.Bob works for the government and belongs to a union. Bob's union goes on strike. Which of the following statements is true?
A. The strike is unlawful because only nongovernment employees can strike.
B. If the strike is lawful, Bob must be a federal employee.
C. The strike is lawful because only government employees can strike.
D. If the strike is lawful, Bob must not be a federal employee.

4. Jacques offers to paint Alisha's house for $100. Before Alisha responds, Jacques dies. Which of the following statements is true?
A. A representative of Jacques's estate must paint Alisha's house for $100.
B. There's no contract because Alisha failed to accept Jacques's offer before he died.
C. Jacques's offer has been revoked.
D. A representative of Jacques's estate must find someone to paint Alisha's house.

The answer is not B.

5. Tyler offers to dance naked on Main Street if Corey will mow Tyler's yard. Corey mows Tyler's yard.Which of the following statements is not potential grounds for setting aside the contract?
A. Inadequacy of consideration
B. Illegality of consideration
C. All of the above are potential grounds for setting aside the contract
D. Lack of serious intent to contract
The answer is not B.

6. Ty and Cher were discussing a business venture over dinner. Cher had several glasses of wine and became visibly intoxicated. Ty and Cher continued to discuss the venture and formed a contract in which Ty received 80% of the profits resulting from the venture and Cher received 20%, even though Cher agreed to invest the majority of the money. Ty agreed to contribute his expertise and services to the venture. The next morning, Cher realized her terrible mistake. Cher's best chance to avoid the contract with
Ty is to say that
A. she was drunk at the time the contract was formed.
B. Ty doesn't have the expertise and services required for the venture.
C. the contract is fraudulent.
D. the contract is unconscionable.
The answer is not D.

7.Josh runs over Barbara's dog. Barbara promises not to sue Josh if he pays her $200. Josh pays $200.Then Barbara sues, claiming an agreement not to sue doesn't constitute consideration. Which of the following is true?
A. Such contracts violate public policy and therefore are unenforceable.
B. Agreement not to sue isn't consideration.
C. Agreement not to sue is consideration only if it approximates what a court would have awarded.
D. Agreement not to sue is consideration.
The answer is not B.

8.Carlos promises to pay $100 for someone to paint his house. Timothy hears about the offer and paints Carlos's house onXXXXX However, Carlos intended that his other house, atXXXXX be the one to be painted and refuses to pay Timothy, claiming that there's no contract because they never discussed which house would be painted. If Carlos has a legal right to payment, it's most likely based on
A. fraud.
B. implied-in-fact contract.
C. implied-in-law contract.
D. express contract.
The answer is not B.

9.Manny says to Carmela, "I'll paint your house for $100." Carmela says "I accept, provided you also wash the windows." Under common law, the most likely result in this case is that there's
A. no contract.
B. a contract to paint for $100.
C. a contract to paint and wash for an amount yet to be determined.
D. a contract to paint and wash for $100.
The answer is not B.

10. Which of the following is a necessary element both for fraud and for misrepresentation?
A. A false statement
B. A hidden problem
C. The intent to deceive
D. A fiduciary relationship
The answer is not C.
Hello,


Thank you for your question

I am working on your answer. One moment please.

Thank you so much for your patience.

Here are my answers for comparison with your own:

1 obligated to sell for $100,000 because Tamara had express authority.
2 A. express contract.
3 D. If the strike is lawful, Bob must not be a federal employee.
4 C. Jacques's offer has been revoked.
5 A. Inadequacy of consideration
6 A. she was drunk at the time the contract was formed.
7 D. Agreement not to sue is consideration.
8 D. express contract.
9 A. no contract.
10 B. A hidden problem

If you have any further questions, I am happy to assist you. You can start your new question with "for FiveStarLaw" and send it to the appropriate legal, tax or homework category so that the question is directed to me and I can give your question my immediate attention

Thank you very much,
FiveStarLaw
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
1. Does Javier's death revoke the contract ?

2. If Big Tech promised Phil employment for 5 years if he leaves his current job...doesn't that involve promissory estoppels?
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
Correct Answers:
8 . Implied -in-law contract
10 . A false statement
Do you have a follow-up question?
Ellen and 3 other Homework Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
see above.I had questions on the fist 2 answers ...
THIS ANSWER IS LOCKED!

You need to spend $3 to view this post. Add Funds to your account and buy credits.
Customer: replied 4 years ago.
Both answers were wrong too ..
1 C.not liable
2 D.Promissory estoppels
4 out of the 10 were wrong.I have given the right answers.
I disagree with the "correct" answers. Of course you do not have to rate/pay for the answers I provided. However I do suggest that you dispute the test results.

You can read the definition of promissory estoppel at this link:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Promissory+Estoppel

I explained the reasoning for enforcing the contract for #1.

Customer: replied 4 years ago.

I am not satisfied with all the answers you provided but still giving you a rating for your help.Thank you.

Related Homework Questions