31.Terry is Norman's tenant. Terry was affected greatly by the global pandemic of COVID-19. Terry lost his job and was unemployed for months. Norman, who understood that 2020 (the year of the pandemic) was going to be a difficult year for everyone. He knew that it would be difficult especially for Terry. Norman decided to do the morally upstanding thing and reduced Terry's rent from $100,000 per month to $50,000 per month. Terry was beyond grateful and thanked Norman everyday for what he did. Norman told Terry that he could continue paying $50,000 until Terry 'ketch back heself, or until COVID-19 was no longer 'a thing'. In late 2021, Terry was able to acquire a higher paying job from the one he had before, and began working in earnest. When the restrictions imposed by the Government in relation to COVID-19 were lifted in January 2022, Terry was well on his way to being financially stable once again. In February 2022, Norman approached Terry and told him that now that things were back to normal, he's expecting that Terry will now resume paying $100,000 per month as rent. Terry assured Norman that he was going to do so. However, Norman also told Terry that he wanted Terry to also pay back the money that Norman deducted for the past two years for the rent. End of facts Q1 : Would Terry be able to claim that Norman in accepted half of the rent meant that it was a new contract between him and Norman? a. Yes, he can use that as the basis of his claim, because of Pinnel's Case b. No, he cannot use that as the basis of his claim, because there was no new consideration given by him to Norman. c. Yes, he can use that as the basis of the claim, because in accepted the reduced amount, Norman did in fact extinguished the rights they both had under the original contract. d. No, cannot use that as the basis of his claim, because there was no new contract between the parties. Only the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel applies. Q2: Can Norman claim for the rent that was deducted from Terry? a. Yes, he can claim for the amount that was deducted because there was no new consideration given by Terry, and therefore there was no effective part-payment of a debt. b. No, he cannot. He cannot do so because the doctrine of Promissory Estoppel would apply. C. Yes, he can claim for the deducted rent because it was not a new contract between himself and Terry. d. No, he cannot claim for the deducted rent because it was already being accepted as part payment of the debt/rent Q3: What type of remedy can Terry seek? a. The equitable remedy of promissory estoppel. b. There is no remedy available to Terry. c. Asserting that Norman in accepting the part payment of the rent was enough to change the terms of the contract, and therefore, Terry is not obligated to pay the deducted amount. d. Stating that past consideration prevents Norman from claiming the rent that was deducted. 32. Nadine and Erica go to have lunch at "The Bougie Place". Nadine orders the Steak Special and Erica orders the Seafood Platter. They decide that they will take away their lunch and eat at work instead. Nadine pays for both orders and both Nadine and Erica left to go back to work. Nadine collects her receipts always, and keeps them for income tax purposes. The cost of the Steak Special is $7,500 and the cost of the Seafood Platter is $9,500. When they got back to work, Erica discovers that her Seafood Platter is inedible. It is rancid and spoiled. End of Facts. Q1 : Can Erica sue "The Bougie Place" for the return of the $9,500? a. Nadine purchased the food for her friend. Erica is getting the benefits of the food, and is therefore entitled to sue for those benefits under the doctrine of privity of contract. b. "The Bougie Place" has no obligations to either Nadine or Erica. They supplied the food in exchange for money. Erica should have checked her food before she left the restaurant. c. Nadine, Erica, and "The Bougie Place" are all parties to the contract, therefore each party is liable to sue and be sued. Therefore, Erica can claim for the $9,500. d. Erica is a third party to the contract between Nadine and "The Bougie Place", and therefore cannot sue for the $9,500 under the doctrine of privity of contract. Q2. Can Nadine sue for the $9,500? a. Yes, Nadine can sue and she will be able to do so because it was Nadine who entered into the contract with "The Bougie Place" b. No, Nadine will not be able to sue, because she was not the one who received a benefit of from the contract. C. Yes, Nadine can sue and collect back all of the money that she spent at "The Bougie Place" d. Yes, Nadine can sue, however, she would be suing on behalf of Erica, and not on behalf of herself