Ramona Smith spilled orange juice on her computer two days before her term paper was due. Ramona desperately needed a new laptop, so she went online and found a laptop that fit her needs. She emailed the seller, Effie Frost, expressing her desire to purchase the laptop. Effie emailed Ramona back and said that she (Effie) would sell Effie's laptop to Ramona for $300. An hour later, Ramona and Effie signed the following agreement: "I, Effie Frost, agree to sell my laptop computer to Ramona Smith for Four Hundred Dollars and zero cents. This is the entirety of the agreement. This agreement supersedes any and all other agreements made by the seller and the buyer." Ramona now claims that she should only pay $300 for the laptop because during that initial email exchange with Effie, Effie told Ramona that $300 was the price of the laptop, and she has the email exchange as evidence of the price quote of $300. What legal concept could be used to enforce the contract for $400? O Condition Precedent O The Parol Evidence Rule O Vesting O Privity of Contract O Statute of Frauds

Reed, a manager for XYZ Products, issued company checks to pay his personal debts.  So that no one in the company would know what he was doing, he disguised the name of the payees.  For example, to pay his American Credit Card bill, he issued the XYZ check to “American.” XYZ Products sued the recipients of the checks, such as American Credit Card, demanding that the funds be returned.  The trial court ruled against XYZ Products concluding that the Defendant-Payee, American Credit Card, was a holder in due course and thus took the checks free of any claims or defenses.    Was the trial court correct in ruling that American Credit Card is a holder in due course? Why? What law is applicable?  Can Reed be held criminally liable for his actions? Why or why not?  Can Reed be civilly liable for his actions? To whom might Reed be liable and for what? 4. What is the business lesson to be learned from this case? Is this a fair result based on public policy constructs applicable to property…

Give typing answer with explanation and conclusion Patricia has a contract with Sandy for personal services. Sandy breaches the contract and Patricia sues. The judge rules that Patricia’s contract with Sandy is unenforceable due to it being “Unconscionable.” What does that mean?

Richard wants to sell his house, as is (meaning, "no warranties"). for $555,000. His neighbor, Chico. expresses interest in buying the house but wants time to think it over. Chico asks Richard to keep the offer open for five days. Richard gives Chico a written document, without a signature, that states, "Richard will not revoke the offer for five days." Three days later, Richard revokes the offer. Chico argues the offer was not revocable for another two days. Was the offer revocable? Yes, because there was not a valid option. No, because there was a valid option. Yes, because Chico did not sign the offer. O No. because there was a valid firm written offer. O Yes, because an offeror can always revoke.