DECISION: No. The appellate court agreed with Cruz that the trail court was wrong in determining that Cruz ineffectually presented Fagor with valid service of process. It also concurred with Cruz on the issue of extrinsic mistake and equitable relief. REASON: Cruz complied with the requirements for proof of service to an out-of-state corporation “by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt”. Cruz also complied with the requirements to send a summons and complaint to a corporation by sending it to the president of Fagor, Patricio Barriga.
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.
* 1. The objective of financial statements emphasizes a stewardship approach for reporting financial information. False * 2. The purpose of the objective of financial reporting is to prepare a balance sheet, an income statement, a statement of cash flows, and a statement of owners’ or stockholders’ equity. False * 3.
b. Indirect interest must be impartial, so independence is also impaired in this case. c. Independence is impaired if the CPA had any loan to or form the client, except “grandfathered loans” or other permitted loans. Grandfathered loans are loans acquired before the requirement for independence. Other permitted loans are new loans obtained under “normal” lending procedures.
A. Current price transaction looks like an arms-length bargain but one party's promise appears illusory, courts often will look to the context of the agreement and identify an implied non-illusory promise such that the consideration requirement is satisfied. 1. Letter to Little Buyer offer? rejection by entering into a substitute transaction, he is excused from performance obligations B.
Applicable individuals who are exempted from purchasing the insurance include those with religious objections (religious institutions primarily serving people of the same faith), illegal immigrants, and those who are in prison. They also argue that the penalty exemptions could mean the mandate is not necessarily a mandate. Individuals who don’t meet the income levels and Native Americans who belong to a tribe are also exempted from the tax. Also, it was noted in the dissenting opinion (pp 24-25) the case for calling this shared responsibility payment a tax is not very accurate. According to the dissenting opinion, the shared responsibility payment is located in Title I of the Affordable Care Act, meaning it is required for the act to stand.
So, then this means that Dyer needs to be alert of the sales tax. The argument of Dyer definitely is not good enough for the discussions about the purchase of the sales person in regards to the disputed sales tax (Mallor, et al.,2007). This arrangement furthermore reveals no other agreements verbally or any whatsoever that is not acceptable other than the current paper contract that was endorsed by Dyer (Mallor,
The legal issues in this case are whether the letter stating the variation applied to the original contract could still be held to be a binding contract. Another issue is whether there is a consideration on both parties to enable Boots to invoke the buy back clause and whether there was benefit to both parties to constitute a good consideration between them. This leads to whether Amdahl is liable for a breach of contract for his unwillingness to invoke the buy back clause in the contract. Judge Waller LJ took the formalist approach for this case by deciding the case based on the law itself without taking into account whether it was fair or not. There was procedural fairness in his judgment as he quoted from Chitty on Contracts 28th edition paragraph 3–074, which proved to be the ratio decidendi in the case, if not very persuasive obiter dicta.
General is not the holder in due course because they did not acquire the note in good faith. To become a holder in due course, the owner must be in effect a bonafide purchaser and in this case the observance if reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing. The more a holder knows about the underlying transaction, and particularly the more he controls or participates or becomes involved in it, the less he fits the role of a good faith purchaser for value. In this case General had knowledge that Lustro was nearly insolvent at the time of the assignment and that Lustro
This may be included in the length of the contract terms or may be a collateral contract to this effect. (Gentleman’s agreement). On this basis, the arbitrator can depart from the general rule. The foundation of arbitration is mutual consent and agreement of the parties. Unless there is an agreement contrary , the tribunal is obliged to adopt the principle that cost follows the event.