Provide answers to the following

Study each of the following cases. Answer the questions that follow with Yes or No.

Adequacy of Consideration:Duggan inherited some nondescript furniture, including an old desk that he sold to Andersen for $50. A short time later he learned that the desk was an antique worth about $500. Duggan brought suit to recover $450, the difference between the sale price and what the desk was really worth.

1. a.Will Duggan succeed in this suit?
2. b.Is the contract between Duggan and Andersen unconscionable?
3. c.Is the contract void because of the inadequacy of consideration?

Blank # 1

Blank # 2

Blank # 3

Question 2(2 points)

Forbearance:Helfrich, in a barroom brawl, broke Grady's arm. Grady brought suit against Helfrich for damages. Before the case came to trial, Helfrich offered to give Grady a $500 note, payable in 30 days, as full settlement for all claims Grady had against Helfrich. Grady accepted this offer. When the note came due, Helfrich refused to pay, claiming that there was no exchange of benefits and no consideration.

1. a.Is Helfrich correct in his claim that consideration was lacking?
2. b.Could Grady's action in dropping the suit be regarded as consideration?
3. c.Is forbearance a form of consideration?

Blank # 1

Blank # 2

Blank # 3

Question 3(2 points)

Acceptable Consideration:Alfieri, a hunting enthusiast, frequently shot birds in his own and his neighbor's backyard in violation of a city ordinance that prohibited guns being discharged within the city limits. The neighbor offered to pay Alfieri $100 if he would refrain from shooting birds for one year. At the end of the year, the neighbor refused to pay, claiming that there was no consideration.

1. a.Will Alfieri succeed in collecting the $100?
2. b.Is there consideration present in this agreement?
3. c.Is a barren promise acceptable consideration?

Blank # 1

Blank # 2

Blank # 3

Question 4(4 points)

Study each of the following cases carefully. Briefly state the principle of law and your decision.

Unconscionable Contract:Jackson, a widow who was desperate for money, sold land to her brother, Seymour, for $275. Later Seymour found valuable timber on the land and sold some of it for $2,353. When Jackson realized that the property was worth much more than she had originally thought, she offered to return the sales price with interest. Seymour refused. Jackson sued, claiming fraudthat her brother, upon whom she relied for the management of her affairs, had misrepresented the value of the land. The initial court decision favored Seymour, and the decision was appealed. Is it likely that the court will invalidate the sale of the property? [Jackson v. Seymour, 71 S.E.2d 181 (Virginia)]

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?

Question 5(4 points)

Study each of the following cases carefully. Briefly state the principle of law and your decision.

Specificity of Consideration:Forrer was an employee of Sears for many years. He eventually left because of health problems and began operating a farm. Sears persuaded Forrer to return to work on a part-time basis, and about one month later promised permanent employment if Forrer gave up the farm and returned to work full-time. Forrer did so, but four months later he was discharged without cause. Forrer sued for damages, lost the case in the trial court, and appealed. Will Forrer be successful in his complaint against Sears? What consideration was promised by Forrer and Sears? [Forrer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.,153 N.W.2d 587 (Wisconsin)]Page 164

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?

Question 6(4 points)

Study each of the following cases carefully. Briefly state the principle of law and your decision.

Consideration:The Spring Well Drilling Company entered into a contract with Towne Construction Company to drill a well to supply water to a particular piece of property where Towne was building a house. Spring Well offered no guarantee that water would, in fact, be produced. The drilling proceeded, but no water flowed. Towne refused to pay on the grounds that there was a failure of consideration. Spring Well sued to collect the agreed fee. Will Spring Well succeed in the suit?

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?

Question 7(3 points)

Study each of the following cases carefully. Briefly state the principle of law and your decision.

Validity of Consideration:Maitland, a fund-raiser for Arbor College, solicited contributions for the college's building program. Hamill Manufacturing pledged a contribution to the program. When the company did not pay, Maitland sued. Hamill claimed there was no consideration. Will Maitland be successful in the suit?

What is the principle of law?

What is the final decision?