Suppose at the end of the meeting that Jack agrees to offer the restaurant buyout, including the non-competition agreement. Prior to Jack and Sophia agreeing to the offer, however, Jack changes his mind. Can he do so?
Yes, as long as he actually communicates the revocation to Hal and Sophia (or their agent) prior to acceptance.
Yes, and there is no need to actually communicate the revocation to Hal and Sophia (or their agent) prior to acceptance.
No, once an offer is made, it can never be revoked.
No, unless the offer states that it is revocable.
Feedback
Suppose that Jack states that he would sell the restaurant with the non-competition agreement for an extra $100,000. Hal and Sophia say they will buy the restaurant, but only pay an extra $75,000 for the non-competition agreement. Jack says no to that. Hal and Sophia, then agree to the $100,000. Do they now have a valid contract?
Yes, for the sale of the restaurant with non-competition agreement for the extra $75,000.
Yes, for the sale of the restaurant with the non-competition agreement for the extra $100,000.
There would be no valid contract.
Yes, but only for sale of the restaurant, without the non-competition agreement.
Feedback
Suppose that Jack makes an offer to sell the restaurant on July 10th. Hal and Sophia decide to think it over. On July 15th they mail a letter of acceptance to Jack. On July 16th Hal and Sophia change their mind and call Jack stating that they did not want to purchase the business. On July 20th, Jack receives the letter of acceptance. Would there be a valid contract?
Yes, a valid contract was formed on July 15th when the letter of acceptance was sent.
Yes, a valid contract was at the time that Jack opens the letter and actually reads it.
No, because Hal and Sophia informed Jack that they did not want to buy the business prior to Jack receiving the letter of acceptance.
Yes, a valid contract was formed on July 20th when the letter of acceptance was received.
Feedback
Suppose that Jack and Hal and Sophia enter into an agreement to sell the restaurant. The contract includes the non-competition agreement. A few months later, Jack decides that he will sell the frozen food in violation of non-competition agreement unless if Hal and Sophia agree to pay him an extra $100,000. Hal and Sophia agree since they do not want to fight. Six months later, however the still have not paid and Jack sues. What is the result?
Jack would win since agreeing to not do something, in this case sell the food, is not valid consideration.
Hal and Sophia would win, since Jack already had a prior existing legal duty to not compete with Hal and Sophia.
Jack would win since Hal and Sophia agreed to pay the extra $100,000.
Hal and Sophia would win since agreeing to not do something, in this case sell the food, is not valid consideration.
Feedback
Suppose that Jack, Hal, and Sophia enter into an agreement for the sale of the restaurant, with Jack stating in the agreement that if he feels comfortable with his finances in his retirement, that he will not sell the frozen food in competition with the restaurant. After the sale, the stock market rises considerably, and Jack's net worth quadruples. He still decides to sell the frozen food. Hal and Sophia sue. What is the result?
Hal and Sophia would win since Jack's net worth quadrupled.
Hal and Sophia would win since the contract mentioned the non-competition agreement.
Jack would win, unless Hal and Sophia could prove that Jack was comfortable with his finances in his retirement.
Jack would win since the promise not to compete was illusory.
Feedback
Suppose that Jack and Hal and Sophia enter in to a contract for the sale of the business. Jack however was drunk at the time that the negotiations took place and at the time of the signing of the contract. Please decide.
The contract is void.
The contract is valid unless Jack did not know he was entering into the contract or lacked the mental capacity to comprehend its nature.
The contract is voidable only if Jack's intoxication was involuntary.
The contract is voidable by any party.
Feedback
Assume that the contract was voidable due to Jack's intoxication. Two years later Jack sues to undo the contract for the sale. Which of the following would be Hal and Sophie's best defense against this action?
That Jack was voluntarily intoxicated at the time of the negotiations and signing of the contract.