choose the best option for these questions

Preston is a successful CEO of a Fortune 500 company (Company B) who is approached by representatives from Company A to run that company. Preston decides on signing a deal with Company A, who has also signed Tesla CEO Elon Musk to a deal. As part of the parties' contract negotiations with Company A, Preston asked for and received a "most favored nations" clause with respect to Elon's compensation. This means that: Preston will receive either the same compensation as Elon Musk or his old compensation from Company B. Preston will receive, at a maximum, the same compensation as Elon Musk under this deal. Preston will receive the exact same amount of compensation as Elon Musk under this deal. O Preston will receive, at a minimum, the same compensation as Elon Musk under this deal.Wilder, a regular gambler at the Santa Anita racetrack, loses big when the horse he wagers on fails to win the race. Wilder loses $20,000 on the bet and becomes insolvent (bankrupt). He then decides to go to the bar to drink a number of shots, which make him intoxicated. Since Wilder has been such a steady source of business for the racetrack, Santa Anita approaches Wilder at the bar and decides to offer him a $30,000 line of credit to continue gambling, which he signs that day. The contract has a forum and choice of law provision, which states that all disputes must be litigated in California Superior Court and that California law should exclusively apply. On the very next race, Wilder proceeds to lose the entire $30,000 he received under the contract. One month later, Santa Anita attempts to collect this additional $30,000 loss by filing a lawsuit for breach of contract against Wilder, claiming that Wilder has no other way of paying the racetrack. Wilder argues that he should not be forced to pay the racetrack for his losses and that he is vulnerable to a company with much greater bargaining power. Which of the following is the most likely outcome in this case? The contract Wilder signed is voidable at his discretion because he gave nothing in consideration in exchange for the $30,000, so the court can order that the agreement should be rescinded. The contract Wilder signed is void and unenforceable because it violates a statute and the choice of law provision prevents Santa Anita from collecting the $30,000 in this case. The contract Wilder signed is enforceable, and he owes the racetrack $30,000 because he agreed in writing to the deal. However, since he is bankrupt, the court will only order that he has to pay back a fraction of the debt in restitution damages. The contract Wilder signed is unenforceable due to public policy, as it would be unfair for Santa Anita to take advantage of him while he was gambling and too intoxicated to understand the terms of the deal.Pinky is a 17-year old who goes to the local Lamborghini dealership in Montreal to lease a car. Pinky and Lamborghini sign the deal and Pinky leaves with the car. On his first trip cruising around downtown, Pinky gets in a fender-bender, and damages the car. He takes the car back to Lamborghini, who refuses to accept the vehicle back in a damaged state. Can Lamborghini do so? No, because Pinky is a minor, and can disaffirm the agreement before he turns 18 ONo, because Pinky did not intentionally damage the car No, because all contracts involving minors are voidable Yes, because Lamborghini is not legally required to take back goods that have been damaged by a purchaserThe causation element of negligence connects the Defendant's to the Plaintiff's Duty of Care/Harm O Breach/Harm Duty of Care/Breach Breach/Duty of CareCary Client calls Lonnie the Lawyer at his office. Lonnie picks up the phone and hears Cary say "Lonnie, you are the worst attorney in California. You're unethical, and you steal money from clients! I'm going to make sure everyone knows how terrible you are by writing nasty Yelp reviews." If Lonnie is upset and wants to sue Cary for defamation, will he prevail in his case? Lonnie will win his defamation case because he was intentionally caused harm by Cary's extreme and outrageous conduct O Lonnie will lose his defamation case because the statement was not published to a third party O Lonnie will win his defamation case because the harm to his reputation is presumed since Cary spoke about his abilities as a lawyer O Lonnie will lose his defamation case because the statement has not been proven falseConner decides that he is going to lead a group of friends in taking over SBCC and plants a tent in the middle of campus near the business building. School officials do not allow anyone to live in their own dwellings on-campus as per its housing rules. However, since everyone is away from campus for an indefinite period, nobody notices Conner living in his tent for eight years. When everyone finally returns to campus, school officials notice Conner having a barbecue with his friends outside his tent. When asked to take his tent down, Conner tells security that "I live here, and I acquired this land by adverse possession. Look at me, I'm the captain now." Is Conner's claim of adverse possession enforceable? No, because Conner's possession has not lasted for the required period of time (10 years) No, because school officials removed Conner as soon as they discovered he was adversely possessing the property Yes, because Conner has met all of the elements for adverse possession: occupy the property, be open and visible to the true owner, continuous for the required period of time and without consent from the owner No, because SBCC never refused consent to Conner, so his possession was not adverseBill the builder is a general contractor and President of Bill's Builders, LLC. Two months ago, Bill was hired by Penny Wise, who owned a vacant piece of land. That day, the two parties signed a contract to build Penny a brand new, 2-bedroom townhouse in Isla Vista for $850,000. In the contract, Bill promises to complete the work within three months, and Penny accepts with a down payment of $150,000. It is now one month before the contract is due and Bill has completed just under half of the house. At the same time, Bill has unexpectedly run out of materials to complete the foundation, specifically steel. Steel prices have jumped 25%, which would all but eliminate Bill's profits if he bought the product to complete Penny's house Bill stops working, and writes Penny a letter, which says the following: "Dear Penny: I'm sorry that your house has fallen behind schedule. Unfortunately, I can't complete your house on time, and will likely need another month on the deal. Also, I need an extra $150,000 today to cover my new costs, like we talked about a month ago. Let me know." - Bill. Penny reads this letter and refuses to pay Bill another cent or give him extra time to complete her house. Penny sues Bill and Bill's Builders, LLC for breach of contract in California Superior Court. What is the best argument that either party can bring? Bill argues that as a merchant, his performance has become impracticably, as the purpose of the contract has been frustrated given the 25% increase in steel prices. As a result, Bill should be excused by the court in performing his obligations under the contract because he can no longer make a profit on building the house. Bill argues that he has substantially performed his obligations under the contract, and since there is no strict performance or "time of the essence" clause, Bill is entitled to half of the contract price, or $400,000, for the work he has completed to date. Penny argues that she is under no obligation to pay Bill and should receive her initial $150,000 deposit back in restitution, as Bill fraudulently entered into a contract with Penny under a mistaken assumption, and that he could not complete performance under due to the price of steel. Penny argues that Bill has engaged in anticipatory breach, in that there is still time for Bill to complete the contract, but Bill will likely not do so on time as he has stopped working without a legal justification. As a result, Penny should not have to pay any money beyond her initial deposit or give Bill additional time to complete the house. MacBook ProJim operates a successful wine shop in San Diego. Looking for a career change, he decides to advertise in the local newspaper for prospective buyers. A few days later, Jim receives a letter from Bill, who is interested in purchasing the wine shop. Jim and Bill discuss the sale of the business over a number of weekends, and after some negotiations, enter into an agreement for Bill to purchase the entire wine shop for $500,000. As part of the contract, Jim agrees to receive a separate $5,000 payment in exchange for a \"non-competition\" clause, where the parties agree that Jim shall not open another wine shop within 8 miles of San Diego for a period of one year. They also agree that if either party breaches the agreement, the breaching party will pay $50,000 in liquidated damages. Both parties sign the agreement. Six months after the sale, Jim has a change of heart, and opens a prohibition-style Speakeasy 5 miles away from the wine shop that caters to an afuent crowd, many of whom are his former customers. Jim's Speakeasy does [M sell wine. A few weeks later, Bill sees an article in the San Diego Union- Tribune with a glowing review of the Speakeasy, with Jim's picture right next to the article. The article quotes Jim as saying \"I have the best cocktail lounge in all of North County - come on in and check it out!\" Enraged, Bill sues Jim for breach of contract in California Superior Court. Who wins and why? " Jim wins, because even though the non-competition clause is enforceable, he can successfully argue that he has not provided a similar service and as such, it would be unreasonable in this situation to consider his actions a breach of the non-competition provision of this agreement. Jim wins, because non-competition'clauses between individuals in California are considered against public policy, and in cases like these where there are no trade secrets or special proprietary formulas, are always presumed to be unenforceable. r' Bill wins, because he is still within California's four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract and the . liquidated damages clause of $50,000 that the parties agreed to is reasonable given the extent of the harm to Bill's business. C' Bill wins, because the non-competition clause is reasonable in its scope (time, geography and service offered), and Jim has breached this clause because he is taking customers from Bill's wine shop. Therefore, it can be ' presumed that Jim was directly soliciting business despite his agreement with Bill not to do so, and Jim was given separate consideration for this non-competition provision, making the term valid. Chase is a frequent visitor to Paso Robles and loves the local wines. He decides to join the wine club at Niner, which sends him 12 bottles of wine each year in three shipments. A year into the deal, Chase moves to South Korea on a baseball contract and asks Niner to send the wine to his new address until he returns to the United States. Does Niner have to send the wine to Chase's new address? No, since this is an example of an irrevocable delegation No, since this would substantially change Niner's duties under the agreement O Yes, unless the contract contains a termination clause Yes, since Chase is still the intended beneficiary under this agreementAn "I Love You" trust passes everything to the surviving spouse, where everything can be changed. Likewise, an "A-B" trust splits an estate into parts: 4: the decedent's estate, the survivor's estate, the beneficiary estate and the dormant estate 2: the decedent's estate and the survivor's estate O 4: the decedent's estate, the survivor's estate, the community estate and the beneficiary estate 3: the decedent's estate, the survivor's estate and the community estateLA Fitness enters into an employment contract with Alex for personal training services. Alex agrees that he will be paid 50% of all business he brings in as well as a base salary. As part of the deal, LA Fitness asks Alex to sign a provision saying that if he is assaulted by anybody in the gym that he waives his right to sue LA Fitness and can only go after the individual who assaulted him instead. Is this provision enforceable? Yes, because Alex was paid valid consideration for this agreement Yes, because Alex had the right to reject this provision but agreed to it instead Yes, because Alex can still sue the individual who committed the wrongful act O No, because companies cannot contract around gross negligence or intentional tortsBusinesses who act unethically often do so because of the "moral minimum", which means that: O The law does not take morals or intent into consideration, and only deals with the facts facing businesses today O The law sets forth a minimum set of requirements for companies to abide by, so unethical behavior is not necessarily illegal O The company conducted a cost-benefit analysis and determined that it would be cheaper to disobey the law than to follow it The company only needs to provide maximum value for its shareholders, and the environment does not help a company maximize valueTwo friends in a limited partnership (LP) start getting into disagreements on how to manage a rental property that the partnership owns. One partner who owns 80% wants to spend lots of money improving the building so it will rent for a higher amount, and the other partner which owns 20% has no additional money and does not want to borrow some from a bank. Can the second partner force the other partner to dissolve the partnership and sell the property? No, because one partner wants to continue running the business O No, because only the partner that has 80% in the partnership can dissolve the LP No, because the second partner holds a minority interest of only 20% in the partnership O No, because the decision to dissolve must be unanimous among the partnersJoshua lives in a house behind Sherin and needs to use the immediate airspace above her property to run electricity wires to his house, as without it, Joshua would not be able to receive power from the local Department of Water and Power (DWP) grid. In signing over the limited right to use the airspace over her property, Sherin has granted what right to Joshua? License Profit O Easement PrescriptionD Question 22 1 pts When a State legislature passes a new law that discriminates against people on the basis of national origin, a Court will evaluate the law using: O Rational Basis Review Executive Scrutiny Strict Scrutiny O Intermediate ScrutinyAdam turns to his friend Bryan on graduation day and tells him that he will pay Bryan $100 if he sings "Despacito" to the entire graduating class when he walks across the stage. A few moments before Bryan goes onstage, Adam turns to Bryan and says "changed my mind, deal's off". Bryan ignores Adam, goes onstage and sings to the entire class. He hops off the stage and asks Adam for the $100, which Adam refuses. If Bryan were to sue Adam, who would win and why? Bryan wins, because Bryan fully performed his obligations under the parties' agreement Adam wins, because Bryan never entered into an option deal to keep the offer open until the end of graduation O Adam wins, because an offer can be revoked anytime before it is accepted Bryan wins, because it would be unfair for the court not to enforce a deal on the parties' discussionsRTI and INC, two technology companies, enter into a deal to buy and sell RTI's 5,000 square foot office space in downtown Los Angeles, which RTI owns in fee simple. Once the deed is signed transferring a parcel of real property from a seller (grantor) to a buyer (grantee), it must then be recorded with which of the following parties: The California Secretary of State's Office O The County where the property is located The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) The City where the property is locatedCarlos and Carla, a married couple in California, recently received an check in the amount of $250,000 from Carlos' father as a living inheritance gift to help the couple start their lives together and buy their first home. This money is considered to be since it was Separate property; inherited Community property; acquired during marriage and intended for both spouses Community property; inherited Separate property; transmuted