Matilda has a written contract with a builder, Juan, to build a new factory for $5,000,000 by 30 November. Juan calls Matilda in March and says that he can no longer build the factory for $5,000,000 as his costs have gone up. Matilda orally agrees to pay an extra $500,000.What can Juan do to ensure that the promise to pay the extra money is enforceable against Matilda?i. Juan should get Matilda’s promise in writing along with his signature.ii. Juan should promise to do some additional work, such as building a shed behind the factory.iii. Juan should get Matilda’s promise in a deed.iv. Juan does not have to do anything as a contract can be oral and is not required to be in writing.Question 17Answera.Only (i) is likely to be correct.b.Only (iv) is likely to be correct.c.(i) and (iv) are likely to be correct.d.(ii) and (iii) are likely to be correct

41.Question 41Aashka is negotiating to sell her car to Juana. During the negotiation, Aashka tells Juana that someone else has offered to purchase the car for 5000. In fact, no one else has made an offer to purchase the car. Based on Aashka's statement, Juana agrees to purchase the car for 5200. If Juana later learns of Aashka's lie and decides to sue her: (select one):1 pointShe cannot recover damages for fraud because she should expect sellers to use this type of deception.She can recover damages because Aashka breached her fiduciary duty.She can recover her attorney fees from Aashka if she litigates the case in the United States and wins.all of the above.two of the above.none of the above.

Principle 1: When two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, compel any of such joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise.Principle 2: A contract which completely bars the jurisdiction of the courts of law is void.Facts: X and Y are brothers. They were renovating their ancestral home. They entered into a contract with Z, wherein Z promised to supply cement to X and Y. The contract provided that Z was to deliver the cement at the site of construction at his own cost. It was further provided that the payment was to be made only after the repair and renovation work was over. The claims under the contract were to be raised against both the brothers and any dispute was subject to arbitration and the decision of the arbitrator was to be final and binding. After the repair work was complete, Z raised a claim against X for payment. Decide whether the claim of Z will be upheld.

Yolanda was shoveling snow from her sidewalk, and just to be nice, she also shoveled snow from her neighbor Melody's walk. The next day, Melody promises that she will pay Yolanda $25 for shoveling snow from her walk. Has a contract been created?a.No, Yolanda had a preexisting duty to shovel Melody's walk.b.Yes, Melody made a promise and that created the contract.c.No, past consideration is not valid consideration.d.Yes, Melody has a moral obligation to pay for the work, even if she didn't request it.

Q. 1.Principle 1: When two or more persons make a joint promise, the promisee may, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, compel any of such joint promisors to perform the whole of the promise.Principle 2: A contract which completely bars the jurisdiction of the courts of law is void.Facts: X and Y are brothers. They were renovating their ancestral home. They entered into a contract with Z, wherein Z promised to supply cement to X and Y. The contract provided that Z was to deliver the cement at the site of construction at his own cost. It was further provided that the payment was to be made only after the repair and renovation work was over. The claims under the contract were to be raised against both the brothers and any dispute was subject to arbitration and the decision of the arbitrator was to be final and binding. After the repair work was complete, Z raised a claim against X for payment. Decide whether the claim of Z will be upheld.a.    No, as the contract completely bars the jurisdiction of the court of law, therefore the contract cannot be enforced.b.    Yes, as the principle clearly states that a contract can be enforced against any one of the promisors.c.    No, as Y has not been made a party to the claim.d.    Yes, as Z has supplied cement under the contract and has raised his claim only after the completion of the work, therefore he is entitled to claim his money.

Chris, a carpenter, entered into a contract with Doug for the construction of a garage on Doug’s property for $5,000. Chris had constructed all of the garage, except the door, when he refused to complete the contract. Chris has substantially performed his part of the agreement, and would be entitled to payment of the contract price, less the amount necessary to finish the building.Group of answer choicesfalsetrueNext