### Exploring Contract Enforceability#### Scenario:Sue Flay's Cakery promises to pay Oscar Ruitt not to park in a city-designated no-parking zone in front of her store. This agreement is:#### Question:(Choose **all** of the correct answers.)#### Options:1. **Not enforceable because Oscar Ruitt has no legal right to park in a city-designated no-parking zone** - If Oscar Ruitt lacks the legal right to perform the action, the promise may not form a valid contract due to lack of legal consideration. 2. **Not enforceable because Oscar Ruitt never made any enforceable promise to Sue Flay's Cakery** - A contract requires mutual agreement and consideration from both parties. If Oscar Ruitt did not reciprocate with a binding commitment, the contract could be deemed unenforceable. 3. **Not enforceable because Oscar Ruitt is merely making an illusory promise** - An illusory promise appears to be a commitment but does not actually bind the party to any action. This could invalidate the contract. 4. **Enforceable because Oscar Ruitt is giving up the right to do something he would otherwise have the right to do** - For a contract to be enforceable, there must be consideration, which involves giving up a legal right or incurring a legal burden. This option suggests enforceability if it can be proven that Oscar had the right to park there. 5. **Enforceable because Sue Flay's Cakery is offering legally sufficient consideration to Oscar Ruitt** - Consideration is a fundamental element of a contract where something of value is exchanged. This option posits that Sue Flay's offer is a legally sufficient consideration.This content helps in understanding the elements that determine the enforceability of a contract, considering legal rights, promises, and the nature of consideration.

In the given scenario, Sue Flay's Cakery offers to pay Oscar Ruitt not to park in a city-designated…

Answered: Sue Flay's Cakery promises to pay Oscar…

Similar questions

Over a cup of coffee in a restaurant, X Invites Y to dinner at his house on a Sunday. Y hires a taxi and reaches X’s house at the appointed time , but x fails to perform his promise. Can Y recover any damages from X? (a) Yes, as y has suffered (b) No, as the intention was not to create legal relation. (c) Either (a) or (b) (d) None of these.
Question 1: If John picked up goods from Steve, and while tranporting them to Bob, the trailer was destroyed. Bob refuses to pay for the goods since they weren't delivered. Who pays for the goods? Question 2: Same fact as above. Steve loaded the wrong items and the goods were shipped. What happens in this situation. Question 3: If Steve sent the goods and they were stolen. They were purchased by Victoria from the theifs. Who is entitled to the goods. Steve, Victoria, or Bob. Answer these 3 questions
Because fixtures can be detached from the land, thereby reverting back to personal property, what is a best practice with respect to the creation of a sales contract? to assume that the buyer will ask about any items of interest to not list anything that is to be included in the contract so that easy concessions can be made during the counteroffer phase to assume that the buyer will understand that anything that can be detached will be detached to list everything that is to be included in the contract
Buyer Javier makes a formal offer to Seller Joy: $250,000 and the appliances stay. Joy counters: $250,000, no appliances. Joy then reconsiders and accepts the first offer. Is Javier is obligated to buy the home? Why or why not? Yes, because Javier never formally withdrew the offer. No, because once Javier's offer is countered, it is considered rejected and is dead. Yes, because Joy's counter was for the same amount of money as Javier's initial offer. No. because a buyer can withdraw from a contract for any reason without penalty.
Explain the statutory interpretation tools in law for the following . " No parking allowed".
Individual Written Assignment - Question On 14th February 2023, Peter advertised his BMW car which was actually worth RM80,000 for sale for RM66,000 in the Star newspaper. On 15th February, Tracy saw the advertisement and went over to Peter's house with a cheque for RM66,000 but Peter refused to accept the cheque without giving any valid reason. Tracy thereafter told Peter that she would sue Peter for breach of contract. Also on 15th February, Dave wrote to Peter enclosing a cheque for RM66,000 saying that he would assume the car was his unless he heard to the contrary. On 16th February, Angel inspected the car and requested two days to make her decision. Angel asked Peter whether he could keep the offer open for her, for which Peter agreed in exchange for RM200. The next day. Angel went over to Peter's house with RM63,000 cash but Peter refused to accept the lesser sum. Peter requested Angel to increase the sum to RM65,000 to which Angel's reply was the highest she could afford was…
Having recently made a fortune by inventing and selling a new piece of software, Matt heardthat his friend, Lois, was having a hard time obtaining a bank loan. Matt therefore generously promised the bank that he would be responsible for the debt if Lois failed to repay a loan. That promise will be enforceable against Matt if A) he provides a notarized copy to the bank B) Lois repeats Matt's promise in a document that she signed. C) either Lois or the bank provides some positive benefit to Matt personally D) the promise is contained in a document that Lois and the bank signed. E) he provides it to the bank in a signed document.
Time Inc. offers to sell to Unlimited Sales Company one hundred digital watches at $50 a piece, subject to certain specific delivery dates. Unlimited replies with a signed purchase order that reads, “Accept your offer for 100 watches at $50 each. Must be delivered to our warehouse.” Time does not respond or deliver the goods. Unlimited files a suit for breach of contract, to which Time answers that there is no contract because Unlimited’s purchase order contained additional terms and is not signed by Time. A valid contract exists and the additional terms ("must be delivered to our warehouse") becomes part of the contract. A) True B) False
Buyer Bert can't believe that Seller Sam has had a last-second change of heart about entering into an agreement to sell his home to Bert. Sam has offered to refund Bert's earnest money and even pay him something in acknowledgment of Bert's inconvenience and disappointment, but Bert's not having it. He wants Sam's house. Choose the remedy for breach of trust that Bert will most likely take. demand specific performance initiate rescission accept compensatory damages settle for liquidated damages
Using the IRAC model to answer the question. Jim and Jane got married last Sunday. The next day they travelled to Extended Stay Hotel in Miami for their honeymoon. They arrived at the Hotel, checked in and proceeded to their room. At the back of the front door in their room was a notice excluding liability, which read that “ Extended Stay will not be responsible for articles lost or stolen, unless it is logged at the front desk for safe custody.” However, this exclusion clause could only be seen after the door is closed as well as, the actual notice was small and colored in black, with a white background. Regrettably, with all the excitement of their honeymoon, both Jim and Jane did not even notice the exclusion clause at the back of the door. One day when they were out shopping, someone came into their room and stole Jim’s laptop.…
Should FedEx be liable for the alleged loss of valuable rare coins when FedEx did not know what the package contained. Rykard v. FedEx Ground Package System.
21)According to the objective theory of contracts, the intent to enter into an express or implied-in-fact contract is judged by the ______ doctrine of equity reasonable person standard legality of the contract common law of contracts

SEE MORE QUESTIONS