Here, it would be affirming that there was a binding contract, but insisting that the obligation of Proudfoot had not been performed. This would make Proudfoot liable for damages. If the nonperformance were deemed to “erase” the element of consideration, Proudfoot could say that there never was a contract because of the failure, and therefore, no damages could be recovered for the breach of a contract that did not
c) Eric may not represent the seller’s interests to the detriment of the buyer. Correct 5. What is the only real property interest that shareholders have in a cooperative? d) Fee simple defeasible. INCORRECT 6.
. . This court, however, has rejected mere "speculative reasoning" as a basis for proving access, especially when intermediaries are involved. Id. Reasoning that amounts to nothing more than a "tortuous chain of hypothetical transmittals" is insufficient to infer access.
YES. There was sufficient consideration in their agreement because Boehm forbear in good faith a bastardy claim against Fiege in promise for financial relief. 2. NO. Blood test confirmed no biological attachment, therefore, Fiege is not obligated to care for the alleged daughter.
Adequacy of Consideration Adequacy of consideration refers to the fairness of the bargain. Ordinarily, courts will not evaluate the adequacy of consideration, unless it is so grossly inadequate as to “shock the conscience” of the court—if, in terms of its amount or worth, it indicates fraud, duress, or undue influence. The con¬tract may be declared unconscionable. A BAD BARGAIN is not failure of consideration Court do not consider the adequacy of the consideration given for the promise – the fact that the consideration supplied by one party is slight when compared with the burden undertaken by the other is immaterial as long as 1. the parties freely agreed to the exchange III. Agreements That Lack Consideration A. PREEXISTING DUTY Under most circumstances, a promise to do what one already has a legal duty to do is not legally suffi¬cient consideration.
The trial judge, McLelland J, held that the joint tenancy had not been severed. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s decision, applying the principles set down in Milroy v Lord and followed in later decisions, stating that the trustee had obtained no legal or equitable interest in the land. In dismissing the appeal in the High Court, Mason CJ and McHugh J, in a joint judgment, and Deane J, held that no interest arose in equity because the donor had not done everything that was necessary for her to have done to effect a transfer of legal title. The High Court did not consider the power of the donor to recall the gift to be strictly relevant to the issue of whether she had done everything necessary to effect a transfer of legal title. This is also not particularly relevant either as Percy has not asked for the gift to be returned.
Verbal acts - verbal acts not offered for their truth. Non hearsay. An offer made or to defame someone. Such a statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule, because it has a legal significance completely apart from its truth or falsity. The testimony of Pam Duffy, wife of Gadget Co. CEO Charlie Duffy.
Suppose that Cornelius believes that Elliot is not a good hire for Pharma. Can he fire Elliot? Although Adams may have had the legal right to hire Elliot without the consent of the others, it was a morally wrong decision not to seek the consent of the other shareholding partners. As a privately held corporation which is small in size, the promotion of business efficiency is an objective best served by enabling the owners to arrange the organization of the enterprise as they choose unless such decisions are outside the scope of the partnership business which would make it impossible to
The interoperability was never put into place for reasons that can only be speculated on. There are assumptions that Grant Holcomb the architect of the proposed system had a conflict of interest that may have profited him. There are also allegations that Greg Meffert, Nagin's chief technology officer, stated that the technology wouldn't work. Many controversial issues of being unethical by several parties involved in this system caused a delay that unfortunately wasn’t in play for Katrina. Interoperability is dangerous to the concept of Federalism because although New Orleans was granted money to fund the system by the national government, at the state level, it was never implemented.
In response to the option in which God creates a world with free agents and no evil, a world with no evil would mean a world with no good, so it would be impossible for God to create a free agents that only choose good, since evil does not exist. It would limit free will, and limited free will is not free will. The reason why it would be impossible for good to exist without evil existing is that we need evil to exist so that we can define it and understand what it is and how it works. After we find out that information, we could base what good is off of what evil is not, which is what we do now with