EJ
Emmett Jaeger
Answers (3)
EJ
Answered
Set forth the factors referenced in the text that enter into a finding of whether undue influence exists.
On May 14, 2024
(1) Was the dominant party rushing the other party to consent? (2) Did the dominant party gain undue enrichment from the agreement? (3) Was the nondominant party isolated from other advisers at the time of the agreement? (4) Is the contract unreasonable in the sense that the results of the exchange overwhelmingly benefit the dominant party?
EJ
Answered
Useless Friend.Charles,who is very gullible,is friends with Bobby.Bobby,who cannot be trusted,decides to try to bind Charles to a contract in Bobby's favor.Bobby has Charles sign a contract promising to wash Bobby's car once a week for a month for $80.The contract incorporated by reference terms on the back.The terms on the back were in very small print and required Charles for one year to cook dinner for Bobby,do his laundry,and clean his apartment.Bobby is also very angry with his former girlfriend,Tessa,and decides to start rumors that would constitute the tort of defamation,such as that she has a vile disease,cheated on tests,and stole from friends.Bobby wants to enlist the help of Charles but knows that Charles would be hesitant to assist in his endeavors.One evening,however,Charles drank too much beer and was clearly intoxicated - a fact apparent to Bobby.Bobby had him sign a contract agreeing to defame Tessa for $50.When he sobers up,Charles tells Bobby that he was drunk and that he has no intention of defaming Tessa,who also happens to be Charles's new girlfriend.He also finally takes a look at the contract involving work for Bobby and tells Bobby that the contract is outrageous and that he has no intentions of going through with any of it.Which of the following is true regarding Charles's claim that he had no obligation to defame Tessa?
A) Charles is correct in that he could not be legally obligated to commit defamation.
B) Charles is correct,but only if it can be proven that the defamation would cause Tessa money damages.
C) Charles is correct,but only if it can be proven that the defamation would cause Tessa actual injury.
D) Charles is correct,but only if it can be proven that the defamation is undeserved.
E) Charles is correct,but only if it can be proven that he had a prior relationship with Tessa.
A) Charles is correct in that he could not be legally obligated to commit defamation.
B) Charles is correct,but only if it can be proven that the defamation would cause Tessa money damages.
C) Charles is correct,but only if it can be proven that the defamation would cause Tessa actual injury.
D) Charles is correct,but only if it can be proven that the defamation is undeserved.
E) Charles is correct,but only if it can be proven that he had a prior relationship with Tessa.
On May 14, 2024
A
EJ
Answered
When quantity discounts are allowed, the cost-minimizing order quantity
A) is always an EOQ quantity.
B) minimizes the sum of holding and ordering costs.
C) minimizes the unit purchase price.
D) may be a quantity below that at which one qualifies for that price.
E) minimizes the sum of holding, ordering, and product costs.
A) is always an EOQ quantity.
B) minimizes the sum of holding and ordering costs.
C) minimizes the unit purchase price.
D) may be a quantity below that at which one qualifies for that price.
E) minimizes the sum of holding, ordering, and product costs.
On May 11, 2024
E