Lisa and Darrell Miller had a son, Landon. When the Millers divorced, they entered into a “Joint Plan” (JP). Under the JP, Darrell agreed to “begin setting funds aside for Landon to attend college.” After Landon’s eighteenth birthday, Lisa asked a court to order Darrell to pay the boy’s college expenses based on the JP. Darrell contended that the JP was not clear on this point. Do the rules of contract interpretation support Lisa’s request or Darrell’s contention? Explain.
Answer to relevant QuestionsReview the basic requirements for a valid contract listed at the beginning of this chapter. Now consider the relationship created when a student enrolls in a college or university.(a) One group should analyze and discuss ...While gambling at Prairie Meadows Casino, Troy Blackford became angry and smashed a slot machine. He was banned from the premises. Despite the ban, he later gambled at the casino and won $ 9,387. When he tried to collect his ...The Economic DimensionWhy would any party agree to a covenant not to sue?The Legal Environment DimensionWhich types of contracts are similar to a covenant not to sue? To a covenant not to sue? Explain.On or about May 12, 2009, plaintiff Colleen M. Holmes signed and dated an Entry Form for the 2009 Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure (the Event) to be held on Saturday, June 13, 2009 [in St. Louis, Missouri]. The one- page ...L & H Construction Company was a general contractor involved in the renovation of the Thomas Edison historic site in West Orange, New Jersey, for the National Park Service. L& H contracted with Circle Redmont, Inc., which is ...
Post your question