Jason contracts with Bill for Bill to paint Jason's house by the end of the month for $2,000. Jason's neighbor then asks Bill if he will paint the neighbor's house, instead, for $4,500. Bill explains to Jason that he can't complete both houses by the end of the month and agrees with Jason, that in exchange for an extra $1,500 (so a total payment from Jason of $3,500) Bill will make sure Jason's house is painted by the end of the month. Jason is not obligated to pay Bill the extra $1,500 because:
Bill could paint Jason's neighbor's house and make $2,500 more than what Jason was willing to pay. |
Bill added no consideration to the "new" agreement because he was under a pre-existing obligation to paint Jason's house. |
Bill and Jason did not enter into a proper Accord and Satisfaction |
Bill and Jason did not enter into a proper Novation Jeffrey normally pays David $20/hour to work as a cashier at Jeffrey's store for 40 hours in a week on Mondays-Fridays. In a week that David already worked 40 hours, Jeffrey agrees to pay David $25 an hour if David agrees to work 8 more hours on Saturday. David agrees and works the 8 hours. Under the labor laws, Jeffrey is required to pay David $30 per hour (one and 1/2 times) for the work David did on Saturday. Which of the following statements is true.
|
1.
Jason is not obligated to pay Bill the extra $1,500 because Bill added no consideration to the "new" agreement because he was under a pre-existing obligation to paint Jason's house. Initially both party made contract to paint the house for only $2,000.
So, option (B) is correct answer.
2.
Since, David is permanent employee of Jeffrey and davind agree to work for extra 8 hour on saturday for $25 per hour. So, Jeffrey must pay David a minimum of $25 an hour for the Saturday work even though the Saturday work agreement the two reached violated the law.
Option (D) is correct answer.
Get Answers For Free
Most questions answered within 1 hours.