Chapter 15 1. Odessa cannot enforce this promise. There was no consideration for the promise. Consideration is promise or performance that the promisor demands as the price of the promise. Sarah does not official records and she is not bound to pay the money to Odessa.
They were proposing to become the exclusive distributor to Major. On June 22, 1965, Nalley’s home office in Washington made a decision not to distribute Major’s products, refusing to give a reason. No final agreement was ever executed between the parties. “In his trial testimony Gardiner stated that he had always had ‘lurking’ in his mind questions about Major being able to operate successfully” (Cole, 1972). Immediate efforts by Major to secure other distribution for its products proved unsuccessful.
Our clients also did not attempt to notify or contact the natural father, as we assumed that the couple received an anonymous voluntary donation along with a full waiver of parental rights, which is a mandatory procedure of the Smith Institute. Two weeks ago, Mr. Faulkner arrives at the Lewis’ residence, demanding that he is granted visitation rights in the future along with a request to receive a large amount of money to compensate for separation from his biological daughter. Mr. Faulkner states that if the Lewis’ do not comply with his requests, then he will contact authorities and mandate to have his daughter “returned” to
Joan’s mere suspicion of Garcia is not enough to constitute probable cause. In the case of Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.,
. . This court, however, has rejected mere "speculative reasoning" as a basis for proving access, especially when intermediaries are involved. Id. Reasoning that amounts to nothing more than a "tortuous chain of hypothetical transmittals" is insufficient to infer access.
§59 Requisites of a Will (Vernon 1980), is there sufficient evidence to support that Mr. Goldschmidt’s will is invalid. The Petitioner alleges that the will is contestable due to the method of preparation and signature. CONCLUSION In conclusion, I believe Ms. Goldschmidt can bring an action against Ms. Richardson in the matter of Mr. Goldschmidt’s will. Because Mr. Goldschmidt’s will was not entirely handwritten, or not entirely typed wholly, this could be grounds for the will to be deemed invalid. Also there are no subscribing or “credible” witnesses that executed Mr. Goldschmidt’s
Courts held that mere assertion of one’s illness or of matters unclear at times are insufficient to establish incompetency. Id. at 916. In Armour v. Peek, the evidence presented that grantor occasionally forgot relatives or where he parked his car, was not sufficient evidence to disprove competency and that mere assertion of one’s illness, or of matters unclear at times are insufficient to establish incompetency. Armour, 517 S.E.2d 527 at
For the first element, which is to prove a joint contract, Thermodyn presented a letter and a document named “Thermodyn and M&MK Relationship” as proof. M&MK argued that Thermodyn presented insufficient facts to establish the existence of a joint venture and that the document cannot be interpreted as a joint contract because they do not satisfy the requirements of a contract under Ohio law. The Court disagreed stating that it is not necessary to show that the parties formally exchanged promises and that a contract implied In fact may be proved by showing that the circumstances surrounding the parties’ transactions make it reasonably certain that an agreement was
Moreover, Horatio has no evidence that the HR department treated him in a negative manner and he will not win. If Horatio stays, with the company, the other employees will be overworked therefore, there is no time to train a person with no knowledge or education in HR. Horatio has the burden to prove that in the Title VII complaint, prima facie case of racial discrimination was the reason for
The Court of Appeals saw no justification legally for a categorical rule excluding same-sex harassment claims from the coverage of Title VII. In 1998, The United States Supreme Court declared that same-sex sexual harassment was actionable under Title VII’s prohibition of sex discrimination in the workplace (Perry & Fink,