Jason contracts with Bill for Bill to paint Jason's house by the end of the month for $2,000. Jason's neighbor then asks Bill if he will paint the neighbor's house, instead, for $4,500. Bill explains to Jason that he can't complete both houses by the end of the month and agrees with Jason, that in exchange for an extra $1,500 (so a total payment from Jason of $3,500) Bill will make sure Jason's house is painted by the end of the month. Jason is not obligated to pay Bill the extra $1,500 because:

Bill could paint Jason's neighbor's house and make $2,500 more than what Jason was willing to pay.

Bill added no consideration to the "new" agreement because he was under a pre-existing obligation to paint Jason's house.

Bill and Jason did not enter into a proper Accord and Satisfaction

Bill and Jason did not enter into a proper Novation

Jeffrey normally pays David $20/hour to work as a cashier at Jeffrey's store for 40 hours in a week on Mondays-Fridays. In a week that David already worked 40 hours, Jeffrey agrees to pay David $25 an hour if David agrees to work 8 more hours on Saturday. David agrees and works the 8 hours. Under the labor laws, Jeffrey is required to pay David $30 per hour (one and 1/2 times) for the work David did on Saturday. Which of the following statements is true.

Jeffrey need have to pay David anything for the Saturday work because the agreement violated the law and is unenforceable.

Jeffrey need not pay David anything because David did not provide any valuable consideration for the Saturday work

Jeffrey must pay David $20 per hour for the Saturday work because that is David's normal hourly rate.

Jeffrey must pay David a minimum of $25 an hour for the Saturday work even though the Saturday work agreement the two reached violated the law.