There are no right or wrong answers...
#1, write four sentences of your opinion, do you agree: quasi contracts are implied in law contracts. these are fictional contracts imposed on parties by a court in the interests of fairness and justice. these are usually imposed to avoid the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of another party. i just dont see
how this is a contract. becuase in the book they used an example saying that a man is lying uncouscious when a doctor fixes him and still makes him pay. i mean dont people do things out of generosity? what if the man is unable to pay for the medicine used on him. i dont think that those type of things should be in a contract. or if someone could explain to me what in a little more depth the reason behind quais contracts that would be great.
#2, write four sentences of your opinion:i have worked in a grocery store for many years and in those years we've had many promotions going on. for example in the summer if you slid you club card you are entered in a drawing and could win a car. i have yet heard of someone winning that prize. i think companies do the pepsi thing or stuff like it alot. to me there alway's
seems to be a catch, so i don't even try. Another thing that companies do is the, fine barley able to read print, that has some what of the truth in detail, but a huge picture of something you think you will be able to win, that's really not realistic. In regards to the pepsi case, i think that pepsi is in the wrong to a certain degree and i feel that the man is at fault also for working so hard to get the points needed without
asking of calling pepsi to find every minut detail about the prizes. with that kind of stuff
you have to really pay attention to every little detail. Now i don't think companies sould do this nonexistent prizes stuff, i feel it is wrong. so they should make a comprimise with each other.
#3, write four sentences of your opinion, do you agree?
eaver v. grand prix karting association inc. why would organizaters of a race require that all participants sign exculpatory clauses? the exculpatory clauses is a clause that releases a contractual party from liabilty in the event of monetary or physical injury, no matter who is at fault. organizations do this to protect themseles from lawsuits and problems. in the case above dorothy signed a clause in 1993 but not one the next year, she was still held liable though fo rthe accident
becuase beaver knew about the clause and still went on with the race. many companies face problems where people hurt themselves or others, and of there were no contracts for the events like that then people would be suing left and right. this contract is very important for every compay big or small to show to an employee or someone interacting with the organization to read the clause and sign in their own will. if they refuse to sign then they would not be ableto participate.. this is merely to help companies out. my dad in hos company makes ure every employee signs an exculpatory clause in order to work, for insurance reasons and protection of the business.
#4, write four sentences of your opinion, do you agree?
i don't know what to believe, in that the goal of protecting minors form the consequences
of unwise contracts should ever outweigh the goal of encouraging minors to behave in a
responsible manner. When i was sixteen and went out to try and buy a car on my own, i was laughed at. it was not allowed, i was not old enough to purchase a car on my own, i couldn't even have the pink slip in my name. so in regards to the dodson v. shrader case i don't feel that the shraders are responsible to pay the sixteen year old kid back, i do think they should have never sold the kid the car. i don't really understand the how they could have sold him the car if they new his age, i would think they would know better. this case is weird there are many factors that both party's could be at fault. if the shraders sold the boy a car that had a pre-exiting problem, that is wrong you are suppose to inform the buyer of every condition the car is in, so the buyer can make the decision to buy or not to buy. the boy bought a car under age that had a problem and decided not to fix the problem and in turn the cars engine blew up, that was the boy's fault. then the car was hit that is the driver of the pickup trucks fault, i think that is a ethical problem on the drivers behalf. so i don't really understand minors should be responsible to a degree, if we allow them to take no responsibility that will not be a good thing when they become adults and have to have responsibility.
#1. Quasi contracts are implied in law contracts. These are fair and are imposed by the law on the persons to protect other parties. I give you another example; a pesticide company is having a storage facility of inflammable material, which catches fire. A neighbor rings up a private fire fighting company in the locality and the fire is extinguished. The pesticide company refuses to pay the private fire fighting company that its employees did not hire it. The court will hold that the pesticide company has to pay the charges of the private fire fighting company. Both the case you have stated and the case which I have given have one aspect in common, the party acts in case of emergency, and if did not act, then the loss to the victim would be higher than the money charged for the services. To avoid immeasurable loss to the victim in your case and to the pesticide company and the neighborhood in the example in which I have given you, the law will decide in favor of the service provider.
<br>#2 There are two parts of the problem, if the fine print is so fine that it cannot be read easily by naked eye it can be objected to under the law. Second if it is readable it is necessary that every person who is aiming at ...