On October 29, 1989, Alex agrees to paint Georgia's house during the Thanksgiving week for $4,000 in exchange for Georgia's promise to pay him $4,000 in cash immediately upon completion of the work. Which of the following statements is true of this case?
A) Georgia could hire another painter on October 31 without legal liability to Alex because until he has painted the house, he has not given any consideration for Georgia's promise to hire him.
B) Alex could back out of the deal on October 31 without legal liability to Georgia because she has not given any consideration for Alex's promise to do the work until she pays him.
C) Both parties are bound on October 29 because each has given consideration for the other's promise.
D) Alex could back out of the deal on October 29 without legal liability if he could prove that $4,000 was inadequate consideration to paint Georgia's house.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q32: Rudo asked Harun to detail his brand-new
Q33: On January 1, 2006, Bev owed City
Q34: Polly promises to pay city council member
Q35: _ are agreements between a debtor and
Q36: According to the rule of _, if
Q38: Stintson Corp. had agreed to create employee
Q39: Composition agreements are:
A) made in a way
Q40: Identify the correct statement regarding consideration.
A) A
Q41: A promise to make a gift for
Q42: Explain with an example how promissory estoppel
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents