Eva And Sheena Case Summary
Additional Problem #7
Judgement for Eva. In this scenario, Maria has the legal obligations to pay back Eva the remaining sum of $15,000. In the contract, it states that Maria has to pay $75,000 for the service. Thus, she has the pre-existing legal obligation to pay Eva in full.
Judgement for Eva. In this scenario, though she accepted the check, Eva indicated that it was “under protest”. Because there was a written contract that indicated that a debt of $75,000 has to be paid for the decorating service, it is considered as a liquidated debt and accord and satisfaction does not occur. Maria has the legal obligation to pay the full debt, although she wrote on the check “payment in full for decorating service”.
Judgement for Eva. Although Eva and Maria decided in their conversation that the debt was $60,000 for the full decorating service, there was no written promise or contract that she will discharge the debt. On the contract signed by both the debtor and the creditor, the debt would be $75,000 for the decorating service. The debtor, Maria, must pay $75,000 in full. Thus, Eva has the right to sue for the remanding $15,000. …show more content…
Armand was bound under contract to work as chef at the resort for 3 months at the compensation of $50,000. The promised bonus of $20,000 isn't valid because there isn’t a bargain for consideration. Regardless of whether Armand gets the bonus, Armand still has to work at the resort for 3 months. If Armand quits during the 3 months period, then the Scallop can sue Armand for breach of
Judgement for Eva. In this scenario, Maria has the legal obligations to pay back Eva the remaining sum of $15,000. In the contract, it states that Maria has to pay $75,000 for the service. Thus, she has the pre-existing legal obligation to pay Eva in full.
Judgement for Eva. In this scenario, though she accepted the check, Eva indicated that it was “under protest”. Because there was a written contract that indicated that a debt of $75,000 has to be paid for the decorating service, it is considered as a liquidated debt and accord and satisfaction does not occur. Maria has the legal obligation to pay the full debt, although she wrote on the check “payment in full for decorating service”.
Judgement for Eva. Although Eva and Maria decided in their conversation that the debt was $60,000 for the full decorating service, there was no written promise or contract that she will discharge the debt. On the contract signed by both the debtor and the creditor, the debt would be $75,000 for the decorating service. The debtor, Maria, must pay $75,000 in full. Thus, Eva has the right to sue for the remanding $15,000. …show more content…
Armand was bound under contract to work as chef at the resort for 3 months at the compensation of $50,000. The promised bonus of $20,000 isn't valid because there isn’t a bargain for consideration. Regardless of whether Armand gets the bonus, Armand still has to work at the resort for 3 months. If Armand quits during the 3 months period, then the Scallop can sue Armand for breach of