Questions 1 Running Head: End-of-Chapter Questions

Week 1: Assignment MGMT 597: Strat Considrs of Mgrs & Ownrs Devry University Tracy Phillips

Questions 2

Week 1: Assignment 9.4. Assuming that the Montana law prohibits oral modifications of written contracts without actual performance/execution, then unless some profit-sharing was actually paid, or some memorandum exists from Loren proving the profit-sharing agreement was made, then Dennis cannot enforce the modified agreement, because he cannot satisfy the burden of production necessary to prove the contract's existence. In the area of the ethics of Loren's actions, ethical judgments are subjective, so the question is irrelevant, because it has no effect on the legal outcome of the dispute. The contract is either enforceable or it's not -- that is the only issue. (Winkel v. Family Health Care, 1983) 10.7. Mr. Peter Andrus made an offer to purchase insurance for an apartment building for $24,000. Durick Insurance rejected the offer Mr. Andrus made and made a counteroffer containing an automatic acceptance absent affirmative notification. Mr. Andrus' did not reply to the counter offer. As such the failure to pay the premiums as requested by Durick is notice to Durick of the rejection of the counteroffer. So Mr. Peter Andrus wins. (J.C. Durick Insurance v. Andrus, 1980)

Questions 3

11.4. Mr. Ralph Gough was under a preexisting duty to construct the trusses for the Kinney shoe store. The general contractor, Chuckrow, was never obligated to pay for the re-erection of those trusses no matter whos fault if they fell according to the original agreement. Mr. Gough's preexisting duty cannot operate as consideration or change Chuckrow's offer to pay. Therefore the contract was not modified, and Chuckrow is obligated only for the original contract price. Hence Mr. Gough cannot recover the funds. (Robert Chuckrow Construction Company v. Gough, 1968)

13.1.

According to Henry Cheeseman (p. 208), a contract may be rescinded for mistake. Where the mistake is mutual, the parties can agree to rescind or the court can reform the contract to meet the original expectations of the parties. Where the mistake is unilateral, the party seeking rescission must not bear the risk of the mistake, and the other party must not have actually or reasonably should have known of the rescinding parties error. Here, the estate asserted the square footage of the property in its offer, and the buyer accepted the estate's assertion. This could be a mutual mistake, however, real property is observable, and there was no intentional deception. The estate could have easily noticed that the property was larger than asserted. The estate, thus made a

Questions 4 unilateral mistake concerning the size of the property and the price, and the buyer did not jump at the estate's error. Therefore, the buyer can enforce the contract by specific performance and lack of follow through by the estate. (Steele v. Goettee, 1988)

Questions 5

References Cheeseman, H. (2010). Business Law. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey; Pearson Prentice Hall. J.C. Durick Insurance v. Andrus, 139 Vt. 150, 424 A. 2d 249 (S.C. Vt., 1980) http://vt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CVT%5CVT__% 5C1980%5C19801115_0001.VT.htm/qx Robert Chuckrow Construction Company v. Gough, 117 Ga. App. 140, 159 S.E. 2d 469 (Ct. of Appeals, Ga. 1968). http://georgia-court-appeals.vlex.com/vid/gough-vlessley-et-20485989 Steele v. Goettee, 313 Md. 11, 542 A. 2d 847. (Ct. of Appeals Maryland, 1988) http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19880627_004017 9.md.htm/qx Winkel v. Family Health Care, P.C., 205., Mont. 40, 668 P.2d 208. (S.C. Mont. 1983) http://mt.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CMT%5CMt2% 5Carchwaf%5C1983%5C19830712_0000150.MT.htm/qx