42.a Why can it be good for a litigant to show that the contract is simply void and not illegal?

A) It is more appropriate to show that a contract is void rather than illegal because a void contract, even if it has already been formed in law, makes it possible to avoid its legal obligations.

B) It is more appropriate to show that a contract is void rather than illegal because a void contract, even if it has already been formed in law, can be quickly canceled than an illegal contract.

C) It is more appropriate to show that a contract is void rather than illegal because a void contract, even if it has already been formed in law, is easily more voidable than an illegal contract.

D) It is more appropriate to show that a contract is null rather than illegal because if the court recognizes the nullity of the contract, the party will be completely released from the obligations related to the contract. While if the party only requests the illegality of the contract and that it is involved in it, the court will not be able to help it.

E) It is more appropriate to show that a contract is null rather than illegal because if the court recognizes the nullity of the contract, the party will be partially released from the obligations related to the contract. While if the party requests only the illegality of the contract and that it is soaked in it, the court the court will come to its aid anyway but late.

42.b. Directors of a joint stock company can be held liable for salaries owed to employees. True False

42.c. Why is gratitude not a valid consideration for making a promise enforceable?

A) Because, in general, in the free act, the market element is non-existent, that is to say that nothing is required in return.

B) Because everything that is free is really free. Period!

C) Because it would be against the principles of natural justice to demand anything from someone who wants to be generous.

D) Because gratuity is not in itself a legal act.

E) Because the consideration is an act without legal effect.

42.d. What is the main justification for the principle of responsibility for others?

A) The main justification for the principle of responsibility for others is as follows: any fact whatsoever of man, which causes damage to others, obliges the person through whose fault he has arrived to repair it.

B) The main justification for the principle of liability for others is the following: the obligation to subscribe to an insurance system which eliminates fault as the basis for claims.

C) The main justification for the principle of responsibility for others is as follows: everyone has an obligation of diligence towards others, i.e. an obligation to take care not to cause harm to others. 'other people.

D) The main justification for the principle of vicarious liability is as follows: the person making the profit should also be responsible for the loss.

E) The main justification for the principle of responsibility for others is as follows: anyone who directly causes harm to another must