Jennifer wants to sell her car and Timmy agrees to purchase it. Jennifer and Timmy become involved in an over-the-phone negotiat
ion and settle on a price of $1,000. Jennifer lives three hours from Timmy but agrees to deliver the car to him in his home state and take the bus back, provided Timmy promises to purchase the vehicle. She drives three hours. Upon arrival, Timmy says he will not purchase the vehicle unless Jennifer agrees to go to the dealer, get a second set of $500 SmartKeys, and mail the keys to Timmy within three weeks. Having driven all that way, Jennifer agrees. Timmy gives Jennifer the $1,000, using money he borrowed from Joe and promised to repay. Jennifer accepts the money and leaves. Jennifer never sends Timmy the second set of keys. Timmy later decides the car is worth only $500. He decides not to pay Joe and instead gives the vehicle to Joe, explaining his plan. Joe accepts the car and drives away, secretly planning to sue Timmy for the rest of the money. When Timmy is sued by Joe, he makes a claim against Jennifer and claims she should have to compensate him for losses because they never had a valid contract since the car was not worth the $1,000 Jennifer claimed it was. Did Jennifer and Timmy have a valid contract?
The contract between Timmy and Jennifer is not valid for legalclaims because there are no ways to prove the terms they agreed to for the sale/purchase of the car.
<h3>What is a valid contract?</h3>
When we enter into an agreement with another person to carry out any commercialactivity, we generally must create a document in which all the terms and conditions of the contract are established in order to bind both parties to comply with the contract.
If another type of contract is made, for example by telephone, spoken or other modality that does not have ways of verifying what was agreed, it can be considered as invalidcontracts.
Based on the above, the contract that Jennifer made with Timmy over the phone is invalid because there is no way to check what they agreed to.
The solution to this question can be defined as follows:
Explanation:
In the given question, it would make a good impact, because Olmsted incumbent on zloty expenses, and in this condition will be used to cover such all costs, that is much less in dollars unless the zloty becomes reduced. They can also reimburse that zloty loan with much less dollar unless the zloty starts going down.
To answer the question we can look at the
definitions of both "efficiency". and equity", and decide which
action falls under what category:<span>
Efficiency is the quality to successfully finish a job
without wasting any time or resources, by this definition when Eric does not
care about how the pieces are distributed, he is showing efficiency, not
wasting time or energy to distribute, but finishing the distribution.
Equity means the ability to be partial or fair with all, when Eric cares about how the pieces are
distributed, he is showing equity.</span>
A good relationship between a leader and his/her employees will boost up the confidence among them. Moreover, the communication gap which exist otherwise, will no longer be found.
Employees would be comfortable in giving feedback and would not lie for the sake of job, and they would even be able to share their problems with supervisors with less awkwardness.
Leaders support their employees and in turn they get genuine results from them, and this is scene in most of the cases.
