A) Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer,but the employer properly exercised its right to void the contract.
B) Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer,but properly exercised his statutory right of disaffirmance,thereby rescinding the arbitration contract and rending it a nullity.
C) Plaintiff did not enter into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer because he was a minor,and therefore the agreement was a nullity.
D) Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer,but did not properly exercise his statutory right of disaffirmance,thereby he was required to arbitrate.
E) Plaintiff entered into a valid arbitration agreement with his employer,but the employer failed to exercise its right to void the contract.
G) All of the above
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
B) False
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Yes,because the contract was ratified when Parna completed the training program.
B) Although the contract was legal when formed,its subject later became illegal under a new statute,thus it is voidable by either party.
C) Although the contract was legal when formed,its subject later became illegal under a new statute,thus both parties are discharged from their obligations under the contract.
D) Yes,because the contract was legal when formed.
E) No,because the subject matter of the contract is illegal,thus it is void.
G) B) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Exculpatory clauses.
B) An in pari delicto agreement.
C) Adhesion conscionability.
D) Substantive unconscionability.
E) Procedural unconscionability.
G) C) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) A contract for a necessary is a contract that supplies the minor with the basic necessities of life.
B) The purpose of holding minors liable for necessaries is to ensure that minors are able to obtain the basic necessities of life when their parents will not provide them.
C) Whether something is considered a necessary is related to whether the minor's parents are willing to provide the item in question for the minor.
D) A minor can disaffirm a contract for necessaries,but the minor will still be held liable for the reasonable value of the necessary.
E) A minor cannot disaffirm contracts for necessaries.
G) A) and B)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
B) False
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Yes,because the contract can be severed.
B) Yes,but only if she pays the licensing fee.
C) No,because employment contracts cannot be severed.
D) Yes,but only if Nedra did not deem the contract voidable.
E) No,because the agreement was illegal and is void.
G) A) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Yes,because the disaffirmance occurred within six months of reaching the age of majority.
B) Yes,because the type of contract at issues was an arbitration agreement.
C) No,because the plaintiff could have disaffirmed the contract when he was under the age of majority but chose not to do so.
D) Yes,because the disaffirmance occurred within one month of reaching the age of majority.
E) The court did not find the disaffirmance to be reasonable.
G) None of the above
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) If a person has been adjudicated insane and has a guardian appointed,that person has no capacity to enter into contracts and any contract he does attempt to enter into is void.
B) If a person has been adjudicated insane and has a guardian appointed,that person retains capacity to enter into contracts so long as the other party to the contract is aware of the insanity issue.
C) If a person has been adjudicated insane and has a guardian appointed,that person has no capacity to enter into contracts and any contract he does attempt to enter into is voidable.
D) If a person has been adjudicated insane and has a guardian appointed,that person retains capacity to enter into contracts so long as the other party to the contract is aware of the guardian's status.
E) If a person has been adjudicated insane and has a guardian appointed,that person retains capacity to enter into contracts so long as the other party to the contract is aware of the guardian's status and also the insanity issue.
G) B) and E)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Christian laws
B) Blue laws
C) True laws
D) Red laws
E) Colonial laws
G) A) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Interest prohibition
B) No enforceable legal violation
C) Usury
D) Plenary
E) Principle reduction
G) A) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
B) False
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Yes,although Zeb may suffer from mental problems,Zeb appears to still understand the nature of the contract and the obligations it imposes.
B) No,because he did not ratify the contract.
C) Yes,because,even though Zeb understands the nature of the contract and the obligations it imposes,Zeb did not disaffirm the contract within a reasonable period of time.
D) No,because contracts with mentally incapacitated persons are void.
E) No,because contracts with mentally incapacitated persons are void,unless expressly ratified.
G) A) and B)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Implied novation
B) Implied ratification
C) Express ratification
D) Express novation
E) Express ratification if the statement is in writing but nothing if the statement is only oral
G) B) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Even if a minor disaffirms a contract for a necessary,the minor will still be held liable for the reasonable value of the necessary.
B) Whether or not parents would buy the item at issue is irrelevant in addressing a claim that an item was a necessary.
C) A minor may not disaffirm a contract for a frivolous matter that is clearly not required.
D) The claim will have no effect because the law does not recognize the concept of necessaries when minors are involved.
E) Social status is irrelevant as a matter of law in addressing a claim that an item was a necessary.
G) A) and E)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) She is incorrect because all courts approve such agreements so long as it can be shown the employee gained a benefit other than pay from the employment.
B) She is incorrect because while no court would approve a geographical restriction,some courts recognize time restrictions as being valid.
C) She is incorrect because such agreements are criminally illegal in every state.
D) She is correct because such agreements are considered in restraint of trade in every state.
E) She is incorrect because courts across the country vary in regards to the enforceability of such agreements.
G) B) and E)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) 21
B) 18
C) 16
D) 19
E) There is not a set age of majority
G) A) and E)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Procedural unconscionability.
B) Exculpatory clauses.
C) An in pari delicto agreement.
D) Adhesion conscionability.
E) Substantive unconscionability.
G) A) and D)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) An agreement to commit a crime is unenforceable,and an agreement to commit a tort is unenforceable unless a privacy tort is involved in which case the agreement is enforceable.
B) An agreement to commit a crime is unenforceable,and an agreement to commit a tort is unenforceable.
C) An agreement to commit a crime is enforceable and deemed legal so long as the substance of the agreement was deemed a crime after the agreement was entered into,but an agreement to commit a tort is unenforceable.
D) An agreement to commit a tort is enforceable,but an agreement to commit a crime is unenforceable.
E) An agreement to commit a crime is unenforceable,and an agreement to commit a tort is unenforceable unless a business tort is involved in which case the agreement is enforceable.
G) All of the above
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
A) Lisette would likely be successful because covenants not to compete in conjunction with the sale of a business are generally enforceable and Lisette's contract was for a reasonable length of time and a reasonable location.
B) Lisette would likely be successful because covenants not to compete in employment contracts are generally enforceable and Lisette's contract was for a reasonable length of time and a reasonable location.
C) Peri would likely be successful because,although covenants not to compete in conjunction with the sale of a business are generally enforceable,Lisette's contract was unreasonable in that it would have restricted Peri from opening any business.
D) Peri would likely be successful because covenants not to compete in employment contracts are generally enforceable and Lisette's contract was for a reasonable length of time and a reasonable location.
E) Peri would likely be successful because covenants not to compete in conjunction with the sale of a business are generally not enforceable.
G) A) and C)
Correct Answer
verified
Correct Answer
verified
Showing 61 - 80 of 90
Related Exams