1 Anderson was seriously injured in a traffic accident Anderson s
1. Anderson was seriously injured in a traffic accident. Anderson’s daughter called a doctor, Lawrence, and told him to “give my father the best care you can give him, and I’ll pay whatever you charge.” The doctor provided the care, but the father died before the bill was paid. Lawrence attempted to collect for his services from the father’s estate. The executor of the estate refused to pay. Lawrence then attempted to collect from the daughter who had guaranteed payment. Is the daughter legally responsible for the debts of her father if the agreement was not in writing?
2. Dennison agreed to purchase land from Harden with the understanding that the land contained fruit trees. To prove that there were fruit trees on the property, Harden provided nursery reports stating that Pacific Gold peach trees were growing on the land. When Dennison discovered that the land contained valueless, shrubby trees and only a few of the fruit trees he had been expecting, he sued, charging breach of contract. At the trial, Dennison wanted to introduce the nursery reports as parol evidence to clarify the meaning of the “fruit trees” referred to in the contract. Harden resisted having the nursery report introduced to clarify the contract. Was Dennison successful in his attempt to clarify the contract by adding the terms “fruit trees,” or did Dennison get what he agreed to buy?
3. Marti, the owner of an expensive sports car, agreed in writing to sell the car to Berini. Because both parties recognized that some necessary engine repairs were needed, their contract did not specify the sales price, intending to determine the cost of repairs first. The cost of repairs was later determined and the final price settled, but the price was never included in the contract. Is this an enforceable contract?
4. Phung orally agreed to sell a thoroughbred horse to Presti for $ 60,000. When Presti sent a check in payment, Phung told him that he intended to hold the check for a month for tax purposes. Phung retained possession of the horse. While the check remained uncashed, a disagreement arose between Phung and Presti. Phung announced that he would not go through with the transaction and that, since the contract was oral, it was unenforceable. Presti claimed that his sending the check was payment and this action made the oral contract valid and enforceable. Phung denied accepting payment. Is Presti’s claim, that sending the check made the contract enforceable, valid?
Membership TRY NOW
  • Access to 800,000+ Textbook Solutions
  • Ask any question from 24/7 available
  • Live Video Consultation with Tutors
  • 50,000+ Answers by Tutors
Relevant Tutors available to help