Name:
SEND TO dvaroli02@manhattan.edu
Business Law 1 – Part 3 of the Semester – Chs 16 – 18 – 19 – 36 – 37 – 40/// Do At Your Own Pace BUT Make Sure You Answer All Questions.
ANSWERS DUE 12.04.2021 @ 12:00 PM (NOON) – 6 Questions per Week is one approach or 1 question per day for 20 Days is another approach or
set aside 3 hours per week and see how many questions you can answer. Grades will be based on completeness of answers. EXPLAIN YOUR
ANSWERS FULLY.
Page 1
1. Tom Creighton hired Destroy, Inc., a demolition company, to level an old building on a busy downtown lot. Destroy,
Inc. was given full rein to decide on the amount of explosives needed and the placement of the charges. Security for the
site on the day of the explosion was contracted out to a private security firm. When the appointed day arrived, the
building was brought down. However, the building fell in a slightly different direction than that anticipated by Destroy,
Inc. Numerous pieces of adjoining property, both real and personal, were severely damaged.
Creighton claims that the use of an independent contractor such as Destroy, Inc. has insulated him from liability.
a. How do you respond to Creighton’s claim?
Name:
SEND TO dvaroli02@manhattan.edu
Business Law 1 – Part 3 of the Semester – Chs 16 – 18 – 19 – 36 – 37 – 40/// Do At Your Own Pace BUT Make Sure You Answer All Questions.
ANSWERS DUE 12.04.2021 @ 12:00 PM (NOON) – 6 Questions per Week is one approach or 1 question per day for 20 Days is another approach or
set aside 3 hours per week and see how many questions you can answer. Grades will be based on completeness of answers. EXPLAIN YOUR
ANSWERS FULLY.
Page 2
2. Cyril made two contracts. The first was to have his house painted one month from the date of the written contract.
The second was for his neighbor‘s 1957 Ford Thunderbird. Each contract was definite and clear in all respects. As to the
house painting, Cyril inquired with the painter as to when the work could begin. The painter explained that he was
extremely busy and was not sure if he could fulfill the contract. Cyril flew into a rage and immediately hired someone
else who painted the house, but at a higher price.
Lawsuit No. 1 – Cyril then sued the painter, claiming that there was an anticipatory repudiation of the contract by the
painter.
With regard to the automobile purchase contract, after signing the contract, the neighbor decided that she did not wish
to sell her car and refused to complete the transaction. Cyril attempted to purchase a similar car elsewhere, but the car
was a vintage automobile which was not available on the open market.
Lawsuit No. 2 – Cyril sued the neighbor for specific performance of the contract.
a. Discuss the probable outcomes of each lawsuit. Provide a Legal Analysis to explain your outcomes for Lawsuit No. 1
and Lawsuit No. 2.
Name:
SEND TO dvaroli02@manhattan.edu
Business Law 1 – Part 3 of the Semester – Chs 16 – 18 – 19 – 36 – 37 – 40/// Do At Your Own Pace BUT Make Sure You Answer All Questions.
ANSWERS DUE 12.04.2021 @ 12:00 PM (NOON) – 6 Questions per Week is one approach or 1 question per day for 20 Days is another approach or
set aside 3 hours per week and see how many questions you can answer. Grades will be based on completeness of answers. EXPLAIN YOUR
ANSWERS FULLY.
Page 3
3. Louise Feldspar obtained the exclusive right to sell TastyCrunchy Chicken in a specified area. Under the agreement,
Feldspar was permitted to use the TastyCrunchy name and logo for her restaurant and she agreed to comply with
TastyCrunchy’s restaurant requirements. She purchased her equipment, as well as the chicken she served, from the firm.
She agreed to devote a certain percentage of her revenues to promoting the TastyCrunchy operation in local media. The
operation was successful from the start, and Feldspar has had no problem meeting the sales quotas imposed by
TastyCrunchy.
The past year TastyCrunchy informed Feldspar that it intended to open a new restaurant on an interstate highway that
had just been completed in her exclusive area of trade. Because her operation would be competition for the new store,
Feldspar’s right to sell TastyCrunchy products and use the name TastyCrunchy was revoked.
a. What can Louise do? Explain your legal analysis.
Name:
SEND TO dvaroli02@manhattan.edu
Business Law 1 – Part 3 of the Semester – Chs 16 – 18 – 19 – 36 – 37 – 40/// Do At Your Own Pace BUT Make Sure You Answer All Questions.
ANSWERS DUE 12.04.2021 @ 12:00 PM (NOON) – 6 Questions per Week is one approach or 1 question per day for 20 Days is another approach or
set aside 3 hours per week and see how many questions you can answer. Grades will be based on completeness of answers. EXPLAIN YOUR
ANSWERS FULLY.
Page 4
4. Ames, an agent for Baker Antiques, had the authority to purchase early 20th-century American furniture costing a
maximum of $1,500 per piece. Ames bought a 19th-century French desk for $3,000 from Carter. Baker was furious when
she saw the desk, and she fired Ames. Nevertheless, she put the desk on display in the shop with a $5,000 price tag.
When the best offer she got for the desk was $2,500, Baker returned the desk to Carter. Baker told Carter that Ames had
exceeded his authority in purchasing the desk, and she demanded that Carter refund the $3,000 that Ames had paid for
the desk.
a. Will Carter have to do so?
Name:
SEND TO dvaroli02@manhattan.edu
5. Ann was seriously ill and feared that she might lapse into a coma or somehow become unable to speak or act for
herself in her medical emergency. She is aware that agents ordinarily lose their authority to act for principals who