transmission Rule of silenc IN. The (6) e d Mailbox rule Mirror image rule 6. 19. Mutual assent rule Rule of objective assent Once upon a time, ACCT 804 Survivor Ms. Elaine Taylor owned a farm. Disgusted with all the f by-products of farming. Elaine and U.C. Santa Clara graduate, Frank Lee Gullible, negotiated for the of Elaine's 100-acre Sutter County, California farm. On May 5, 2017, the day after excelling on her cond ACCT 804 midterm, Elaine orally agreed with Mr. Gullible on a price of $100,000, one-half in cash payable at closing and the remainder 90 days later. Two days later on December 17th, Elaine sells the f to someone twice as oblivious as Mr. Gullible, my really Dumb Cousin, toe $200,000. On December 1 Mr. Gullible sends Elaine a letter in which all the terms are included and is signed by Mr. Gullible. Elaine never responds, When the closing date arrives, Elaine tells Mr. Chullible that she sold the property to my Dumb Cousin, Frank Lee Gullible sues. A court would likely find that a. b. C. d. This contract is enforceable because Frank Lee Cullible had partly performed the contract by sending the letter to the Seller, Elaine. Elaine is a real slick operator and Mr. Gullible should have taken ACCT 804 at SFSU because this contract is unenforceable, there is no writing signed by Elaine and my really Dumb Cousin now owns a farm. This contract is unenforceable because the mirror image rule applies. The contract is enforceable under the res ipsa loquitur doctrine. 20. SFSU ACCT 804 Survivor William Eckstein (Captain USA, Finance Corps) once was an avid Santa Clara 49'ers fan and remains a season ticket holder. He was complaining to his best B-Law friend, fellow B-Law Survivor Mr. Morgan Clarke, CPA, that the 49'ers aren't the same football team since they left San Francisco. Feeling sorry for William, Mr. Clarke offered to buy William's 2019 49er's game tickets for $1,750. William agreed. Since neither of them had any paper with them, Mr. Clarke wrote the following on a napkin: "Mr. Clarke agrees to purchase from William Eckstein, his San Francisco 49'ers 2019 season tickets to be delivered on June 15, 2019, at a cost of $1,750 payable on delivery." William signed the napkin, Mr. Clarke did not. William delivered the tickets per the contract, but Mr. Clarke, regaining his senses (what was he thinking, buying "Santa Clara" 49'ers tickets??), refused to pay for them. Assuming that 49'ers season tickets are considered goods, if William sues Mr. Clarke for the price of the tickets, the most likely result is: a. Mr. Clarke will win because he did not sign the contract. Mr. Clarke will win because the writing is sufficient under the Statute of Frauds. b. C. Mr. Clarke will lose under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. d. Mr. Clarke will lose because the written document lacks the requisite formality to satisfy the Stat of Frauds. 21. The most distinguishing feature of a joint tenancy is the co-owners' right of a. b. C. d. Estate. Refusal. Survivorship. Commonality