Chapter hw – law
P may recover, as this Is a breach of the contract.P, in agreeing to accept the pension, forfeited his rights to take another Job In the Industry.This is a legal detriment to P, the promise – one which did not exist prior to the formation of the contract.
B- This is not enforceable. This is an example of past consideration, which is not consideration. P had already rendered the service at the time the company’s promise was made. In other words, the service was not induced by or given in exchange of the promise.
If the promise were in writing and acknowledged the past inconsideration, however, this contract would be enforceable. 3) This Is an example of payment on liquidated debt. Because D assumed a new legal detriment – that is, he would not only pay the originally-agreed upon $50,000, but also pay 9% interest on top of that amount – C is legally bound on his promise. 4) No, the debt is not discharged, as this is a matured liquidated debt and is only satisfied when the debtor completes his/her entire obligation – full payment.
In addition, as NY GOLD 5-1103 states, a signature endorsing a check Is not legally sufficient for accepting a lesser amount to satisfy an existing debt. In other words, there must be accompanying documentation with the promise signature, indicating the acceptance of a lesser amount to satisfy the debt. 5) S may not recover here, as there exists accord and satisfaction in a disputed form of liquidated debt. In this particular instance, accord and satisfaction occurs when B sends a check for a Boniface disputed amount, based on the expert opinion that the refrigerators were damaged upon shipment.
The acceptance and cashing of the check by S discharged the remaining debt by cashing the check. If S had indicated, under protest” or “without prejudice” when endorsing the check, he would have prevented accord and satisfaction from occurring, per New Work’s interpretation of USC 1-207. 6) s may not recover. Because s signed a note, walling the additional SSL ,oho that was owed in the contract, he released B from his requirement to pay the full amount of the order. This satisfies the requirement put into effect by NY GOLD 5-1103. ) a- Barry Is entitled to the dilation $350, as Ann, the promise, did not incur a legal detriment by paying a lesser amount and Barry, the promise, did not obtain a legal benefit. Ann was under a pre-existing legal duty to pay the full amount of the debt, which is liquidated and undisputed. B- If Barry had provided Ann a signed receipt, then, yes, under NY GOLD 5-1103, the remaining debt would be considered discharged, even though there exists no consideration for the promise. ) This Is a case of unlimited debt, In which the payment amount Is In question accept a lesser amount, $7,000 ($6,000, plus the $1,000 on the promissory note), to settle the claim serves as valid consideration. If Barbara had indicated, “under protest” or “without prejudice” when endorsing the check, he would have prevented cord and satisfaction from occurring, per New Work’s interpretation of USC 1-207. 10) a- C will recover nothing here.
By re-negotiating the payment terms, there is a new set of consideration at play, as D obtains a new legal detriment of needing to give his stamp collection, along with the new (stated) dollar amount – something which D did not have to include with his payment beforehand. B- C will recover the full $1,000 in this case, as the original $10,000 debt amount is liquidated and past due. Additionally, D did not incur a new legal detriment in paying a lesser amount, nor did C gain a new legal benefit. If C agreed in a signed writing to discharge the debt, then, yes, under NY GOLD 5-1103, the debt would be considered paid off. 12) a- C is only entitled to the $50,000 sum. The promise, O, does not obtain a new legal benefit, and the promise does not incur a new legal detriment. In fact, C was bound by a pre-existing duty to complete the Job for a total of $50,000, which he received. B- According to NY GOLD 5-1103, this would be considered a written agreement (substituted contract), which is valid. As a result, C would be entitled to the full $55,000 amount, even though there does not exist any new consideration.