Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Link Copied!

Question

1 Approved Answer

On March 10, Martin entered into an oral contract with Wilson. Under the oral contract, they agreed that Wilson will work for Martin for two

On March 10, Martin entered into an oral contract with Wilson. Under the oral contract, they agreed that Wilson will work for Martin for two years for a salary of $50,000 per year. Wilson quit his job the next day so that he could join Martin. But on March 12, Martin called Wilson and repudiated the contract, stating that he had decided not to hire him after all. If Wilson decides to sue, which of the following is most likely to be true?

A.Wilson may use the doctrine of promissory estoppel to show that he had materially relied on the oral promise and will suffer serious losses if the promise is not enforced.

B.Wilson cannot sue Martin because there was no written contract.

C.Oral contracts are completely voidable and have no weight in the court.

D.Wilson can sue Martin for false imprisonment and unintentional tort because Wilson did not have a written contract, and this becomes the best alternate course of action.

Step by Step Solution

There are 3 Steps involved in it

Step: 1

blur-text-image

Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions

See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success

Step: 2

blur-text-image

Step: 3

blur-text-image

Ace Your Homework with AI

Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance

Get Started

Recommended Textbook for

Smith and Roberson Business Law

Authors: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts

15th Edition

1285141903, 1285141903, 9781285141909, 978-0538473637

More Books

Students also viewed these Law questions

Question

=+ Do you think a country can overinvest in capital?

Answered: 1 week ago