Which of the following was the result on appeal in the Case Opener involving the alleged breach of an oral contract based on the plaintiff lawyer loaning a corporate client funds and the client later reneging on a promise,made in gratitude,to give the lawyer three percent of the company's stock?
A)That the promise was not enforceable because it was a gift.
B)That the promise to transfer the stock flowed from the loan transaction and was enforceable by the plaintiff.
C)That the promise was enforceable as a gift.
D)That the promise was unenforceable because lawyers may not loan clients money.
E)That the promise was enforceable only if the total the plaintiff received in funds did not violate state usury laws involving maximum interest rates.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

A)According to the court,"If there is no expectation of payment by either party when services are rendered,the promise is a mere promise to make a gift and not enforceable.The promise of 3 percent of the stock represented a moral obligation but was legally unenforceable.
B)According to the court,"If there is no expectation of payment by either party when services are rendered,the promise is a mere promise to make a gift and not enforceable.The promise of 3 percent of the stock represented a moral obligation but was legally unenforceable.
C)According to the court,"If there is no expectation of payment by either party when services are rendered,the promise is a mere promise to make a gift and not enforceable.The promise of 3 percent of the stock represented a moral obligation but was legally unenforceable.
D)According to the court,"If there is no expectation of payment by either party when services are rendered,the promise is a mere promise to make a gift and not enforceable.The promise of 3 percent of the stock represented a moral obligation but was legally unenforceable.
E)According to the court,"If there is no expectation of payment by either party when services are rendered,the promise is a mere promise to make a gift and not enforceable.The promise of 3 percent of the stock represented a moral obligation but was legally unenforceable.

Which of the Following Was the Result on Appeal in the Case