subject
Social Studies, 04.02.2020 23:50 sarinaneedshelp01

Useless friend. charles, who is very gullible, is friends with bobby. bobby, who cannot be trusted, decides to try to bind charles to a contract in bobby's favor. bobby has charles sign a contract promising to wash bobby's car once a week for a month for $80. the contract incorporated by reference terms on the back. the terms on the back were in very small print and required charles for one year to cook dinner for bobby, do his laundry, and clean his apartment. bobby is also very angry with his former girlfriend, tessa, and decides to start rumors, that would constitute the tort of defamation, such as that she has a vile disease, cheated on tests, and stole from friends. bobby wants to enlist the of charles but knows that charles would be hesitant to assist in his endeavors. one evening, however, charles drank too much beer and was clearly intoxicated - a fact apparent to bobby. bobby had him sign a contract agreeing to defame tessa for $50. when he sobers up, charles tells bobby that he was drunk and that he has no intention of defaming tessa, who also happens to be charles's new girlfriend. he also finally takes a look at the contract involving work for bobby and tells bobby that the contract is outrageous and that he has no intentions of going through with any of it. which of the following is true under the restatement of contracts, section 16, regarding charles's claim that he should be able to avoid the contract involving tessa because he was intoxicated?

ansver
Answers: 3

Another question on Social Studies

question
Social Studies, 21.06.2019 23:00
When france sneezes, europe catches cold.what did prince metternich mean by this statement? people in france are more likely to get sick than people elsewhere. europeans elsewhere are often inspired by events in france. happenings in france rarely spread across borders. all damaging incidents in europe start in france.
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 22.06.2019 07:50
Aplaintiff filed a civil action based on negligence against a defendant in federal district court, alleging that the defendant negligently ran a red light at an intersection and collided with the plaintiff's vehicle, causing the plaintiff's injuries. a week after the close of discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether the defendant was negligent. with the motion, the plaintiff filed (i) his own sworn affidavit, which stated that the traffic signal was green as he entered the intersection, (ii) an affidavit of a witness who was driving the car behind him, which stated that the witness saw the entire incident and that the plaintiff's traffic signal was green as he approached and entered the intersection; and (iii) an affidavit of another witness, which stated that she saw the entire incident and that the defendant's signal had been red for several seconds before the defendant entered the intersection and was still red when the defendant entered the intersection. the defendant filed a response to the motion, noting that her answer denied negligence and further denied that her traffic signal was red, and argued that the issue of negligence and the issue of whether her traffic signal was red were in dispute, so those issues should be tried to a jury. how should the court rule on the plaintiff's motion?
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 23.06.2019 00:30
Describe how a person can have both high and low self-esteem.
Answers: 1
question
Social Studies, 23.06.2019 12:00
For 50 points.. some organisms feed on other organisms without immediately killing them. what term describes this act? a. predation b. commensalism c. mutualism d. parasitism
Answers: 1
You know the right answer?
Useless friend. charles, who is very gullible, is friends with bobby. bobby, who cannot be trusted,...
Questions
Questions on the website: 13722359