Question

i need help on this

Chapter 9 Section 3 Question 1:

Rudy puts this poster, with a photo of his dog, on utility poles around his neighborhood: “$50 reward for the return of my lost dog.” Carlene doesn’t see the poster, but she finds the dog and, after looking at the tag on its collar, returns the dog to Rudy. As she leaves his house, her eye falls on one of the posters, but Rudy declines to pay her anything. Is Rudy correct that Carlene has no legal right to the reward?

Chapter 10 Section 6 Question 5:

Randolph enrolled in a business law class and purchased a new business law textbook from the local bookstore. He dropped the class during the first week and sold the book to his friend Scott. Before making the sale, Randolph told Scott that he had purchased the book new and had owned it for one week. Unknown to either Randolph or Scott, the book was in fact a used one. Scott later discovered some underlining in the middle of the book and attempted to avoid the contract. Randolph refused to refund the purchase price, claiming that he had not intentionally deceived his friend. May Scott avoid the contract? Why?

Chapter 11 Section 5 Question 7:

In 1869, William E. Story promised his nephew, William E. Story II (then sixteen years old), $5,000 (about $120,000 in today’s money) if “Willie” would abstain from drinking alcohol, smoking, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until the nephew reached twenty-one years of age. All of these were legally permissible activities for the teenager at that time in New York State. Willie accepted his uncle’s promise and did refrain from the prohibited acts until he turned twenty-one. When the young man asked for the money, his uncle wrote to him that he would honor the promise but would rather wait until Willie was older before delivering the money, interest added on. Willie agreed. Subsequently, Willie assigned the right to receive the money to one Hamer (Willie wanted the money sooner), and Story I died without making any payment. The estate, administered by Franklin Sidway, refused to pay, asserting there was no binding contract due to lack of consideration: the boy suffered no “detriment,” and the uncle got no benefit. The trial court agreed with the estate, and the plaintiff appealed. Should the court on appeal affirm or reverse? Explain.

Chapter 12 Section 6 Question 2:

Albert Bennett, an amateur cyclist, entered a bicycle race sponsored by the United States Cycling Federation. He signed a release exculpating the federation for liability: “I further understand that serious accidents occasionally occur during bicycle racing and that participants in bicycle racing occasionally sustain mortal or serious personal injuries, and/or property damage, as a consequence thereof. Knowing the risks of bicycle racing, nevertheless I hereby agree to assume those risks and to release and hold harmless all the persons or entities mentioned above who (through negligence or carelessness) might otherwise be liable to me (or my heirs or assigns) for damages.” During the race, Bennett was hit by an automobile that had been allowed on the otherwise blocked off street by agents of the defendant. Bennett sued; the trial court dismissed the case on summary judgment. Bennett appealed. What was the decision on appeal?

Chapter 14 Section 5 Question 3:

Marian contracted to sell her restaurant to Billings for $400,000. The contract provided that Billings would pay $100,000 and sign a note for the remainder. Billings sold the restaurant to Alice, who agreed to assume responsibility for the balance due on the note held by Marian. But Alice had difficulties and declared bankruptcy. Is Billings still liable on the note to Marian?

Answer 1

1. Rudy is right in mild of the reality that Carlene did not see the blurb and return her canine. She restored her pooch on her help besides anticipating some thing constructions Rudy. In any case, subsequent to seeing the note she can not promise to Rudy for her reward. She ought to have asserted for her reward before giving the dogs to Rudy. So it isn't legitimately immediately for Carlene to fighting for the reward. It is Carlene's error of not seeing the publication. There is no reliable contract between them so Rudy want not pay for her expressing that she did not warranty for her reward before giving the pooch and didn't recognize about the reward

2. Precedent-based law's perfect illustration concepts categorical that in an agreement, the terms of acknowledgment have to coordinate the particulars of the offer. In any case, UCC has changed the law and expressed that when two representatives go into an alternate now and again the provide and acknowledgment do not coordinate one hundred percent so the court ought not allow both gathering to depart the arrangement. So it has changed the law by using giving

- An unequivocal and opportune articulation of acknowledgment in a composed configuration which must be sent inside a unique period for thinking about it as an acknowledgment in spite of the fact that the offerers settled upon the settlement

- They incorporated more terms for the recommendations of agreement like points of confinement acknowledgment length to the offer, ought to be tangibly composed

3. An offer is usually said to be compelling just if the different birthday celebration acknowledges it. It is tremendous and enforceable simply if there is an agreement or grasp between both the gatherings about the offer and acknowledgment.

The provide can be pushed aside before it is stated via the other party. At exactly that point it is compelling. On the off hazard that the provide is mentioned through the different party and after the acknowledgment, it can not be rejected except the other party's endorsement

A counteroffer is an offer made due to the fact of another. For this situation, it is powerful just if both the gatherings consent to the counteroffers and signs and symptoms an agreement. Both the gatherings need to consent to the offer and acknowledgment of one another. In the tournament that one gathering differs the offer made through the other and contends, at that factor the counteroffer is not compelling