Trevor and Chris form a contract by a series of e-mails culminating in the contract and their “electronic signatures” in bold. The contract otherwise is fine, and they print out “hard copies” for their records; but an issue arises as to whether this “e-contract” is a valid one. This contract is:
Invalid since the common law requires all contracts to be in paper, signed on the paper, and under seal.
Generally valid in the United States by means of the federal E-Sign law.
Valid but only if two witnesses are willing to testify that they saw each party sign electronically.
Invalid under the Statute of Frauds due to the potential for deceit.
Pursuant to U.S. statutory immigration law, immigrant visas can be granted to immigrants who possess “extraordinary” knowledge, abilities, and talents since they will benefit the United States. Idi Obuku is a drum-maker from Uganda who specializes in making native drums and other local cultural artifacts. He is denied an immigrant visa by the Immigration Division of Homeland Security after an administrative hearing because he was not deemed to be sufficiently “extraordinary.” He appeals the agency’s decision to the federal court. The result of this lawsuit likely will be:
Idi Obuku will win since all immigration determinations have to be made after a trial in federal district court.
He will lose because he is from Africa.
He will lose because there is no right to appeal immigration decisions now that Immigration is part of Homeland Security.
He will win if he can convince the federal court to substitute its interpretation and application of the law for that of the agency.
Dan, a doctor, renders aid to Eve, who is injured. Dan can recover the cost from Eve
even if Eve was not aware of Dan’s help under quasi-contract.
only if Eve was aware of Dan’s help.
only if Eve was not aware of Dan’s help.
under no circumstances.
Adam persuades Beth to contract for his company’s services by telling her that his employees are the “best and the brightest.” Adam’s statement is
puffery or sales talk.
Masud, a high-tech employee of Global Tech, signs a covenant not to compete with the firm in which Masud promises not to work for a competitor of Global if and when he leaves the company’s employ for any reason. This promise can be best characterized as:
Unenforceable since it is a restraint of trade.
Unenforceable in most states if Masud is a single-parent and got laid-off through no fault of his own when his job was outsourced to India.
Enforceable but only if Global pays Masud severance for six months in accordance with the federal Family Medical Leave Act.
Enforceable if the time period and the duration of the covenant are reasonable and Masud had access to confidential proprietary information.
Lee, a salesperson for Midsize Corporation, causes a car accident while on business. Lee and Midsize are liable to
all those who were injured.
only those who were uninsured.
only those whose injuries could have been reasonably foreseen.
only those with whom Lee was doing business.
Big Casino Company located on the Gulf of Mexico in Mississippi wants to advertise its “gaming packages” to Florida residents. The state of Florida passes a law prohibiting the advertising of gambling casinos in the state. Big Casino challenges the law as an infringement of its free speech rights. The likely result of such a legal challenge would be:
The Florida law will be struck down as an infringement of Big Casino’s commercial speech rights under the First Amendment.
The Board of Directors of Sun Energy Corporation made a major policy decision for the company to develop cylindrical solar panels, which are more efficient then flat panels. However, Chinese manufacturers, with the strong support of the Chinese government, enter the solar panel market, thereby causing the price of all solar panels to drop significantly, thus causing Sun Energy to lose a great deal of money. The shareholders of Sun Energy are very angry at the Board of Directors for making this “bad” business decision. The shareholders likely:
a. Can successfully sue the Board of Directors because they made a poor business decision which cost the company money.
b. Cannot successfully sue the Board of Directors for the decision due to the Business Judgment Rule.
c. Can successfully sue the Board of Directors because the decision was an unethical one.
d. Cannot successfully sue the Board of Directors because the board members are protected by the Corporate Veil theory from any personal liability.
Dave offers to buy a book owned by Lee for $40. Lee accepts and hands the book to Dave. The transfer and delivery of the book constitute performance. Is this performance consideration for Dave’s promise?
Yes, because performance always constitutes consideration.
Yes, because Dave sought it in exchange for his promise, and Lee gave it in exchange for that promise.
No, because performance never constitutes consideration.
No, because Lee already had a duty to hand the book to Dave.