Answer and explanation:
The statute of frauds requires certain types of contracts to be in writing, but there exceptions. One of those would be the situation of working for an employer for the rest of your life.
This is an oral employement contract scenario and doesn't necessarily must be written in order for it to be enforceable. For this contract to be, in fact, enforceable, the promise should be crystal clear about the employer's right to extinguish.
Answer:
GHB Sdn Bhd and Sandhu
The prospect for Sandhu to recover the extra commission negotiated with Ahmad during golf is very remote.
1. It was made under undue influence, when Ahmad could have lacked the capacity to make a binding contract. In addition, at that time, Sandhu disclosed that the land was being sought after by many other parties as a way of piling unnecessary pressure on Ahmad.
2. There was no intention to create a legal relation because the additional commission represents a counter-offer. Since the earlier offer was fully documented, this additional offer should have also followed the same process if the company intended to be legally bound.
3. There is lack of consideration to back this additional contract. In the first place, the main contract with Sandhu was made in view of his negotiation skills. So what is Sandhu expected to offer the company in exchange for the extra commission? Nothing.
Explanation:
GHB cannot be expected to promise 0.5% extra commission on a deal, which was equivalent to RM2 million, when an already executed contract for 3% commission had been reached. One can also claim that Ahmad, who suffered from occasional dementia, could have made the promise without the intention for it to be binding on his company but as a way of encouraging Sandhu to close the deal in favor of GHB. Was the deal closed because of the extra commission? No.
In the case of Smith v Fifth Third Bank, regarding the <em><u>class action </u></em><em><u>lawsuit </u></em>settlement reached by the parties involved, we can confirm the settlement payment is that of 5.2 million dollars.
The case of Smith v Fifth Third Bank was a <u>class action </u><u>lawsuit</u>. A class-action suit is one in which the lawsuit is a collection of suits filed by <u>many parties, which are tried as a single case, and the parties in question are represented by </u><u>one member </u><u>or group of </u><u>members</u>.
In the case mentioned the lawsuit resulted in a settlement. This is when the party being sued <u>agrees to a payout in return for the charges being dropped. </u>It is said that the Bank in question created a settlement fund to pay the members involved, which held a total of 5.2 million dollars to be paid to the victims.
To learn more visit:
brainly.com/question/16108643?referrer=searchResults
Answer:
so u want to lie down on the tracks
Explanation:
Answer:
All 50
Explanation:
It is the National policy that all states have adopted under the threat that Federal funding will be withheld if they do not. It isn't a federel law but a guidline not 100-% on this but pretty sure
