Question

Question: Clyde and Betty were friends. Clyde operated an automotive tire business, and Betty owned an interest in a Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) franchise. When Betty became ill, she requested that Clyde begin spending additional time at the KFC franchise to ensure its continued operation. Subsequently, Betty agreed that if Clyde would devote full time to the KFC franchise, they would operate the business as a joint enterprise, share equally in the ownership of its assets, and divide its returns equally. Pursuant to this agreement, Clyde terminated his tire business and devoted his full time to the KFC franchise. Twelve years later, Betty abandoned Clyde and denied him any rights in the KFC franchise. Clyde sued to enforce the agreement with Betty.

Under what theory would Clyde pursue this claim, and how might Betty respond? What is the likely outcome? Explain fully in 3-4 paragraphs.

Answer 1

Under the theory of “Psychological egoism” Clyde would pursue this claim as according to this theory the only thing any person is capable desiring or perusing ultimately is self-interest.

Based on this same theory of “Psychological egoism” Betty respond would respond by perusing her interest and doing everything that is possible in stopping Clyde from getting the claim.

The likely outcome, in this case, will depend upon the fact that whether there was any written contract or agreement between the two i.e. Betty and Clyde. If there was then things will go in the favor of Clyde in the court otherwise; it will go in the favor of Betty and there won’t be any proof for the claims that Clyde will make in the court.