Hazirah can legally claim the remaining balance of Intan's debt because there was no acceptance of the offer from Johan that the part-payment should serve as full settlement.
<h3>What is the law of contract?</h3>
The law of contract deals with the enforcement of promises when certain elements are present. These contract elements include offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention.
Intan should remember that a valid and enforceable contract has conditions. We cannot claim there is an implied acceptance of Johan's offer. Johan cannot modify the contract terms between Intan and Hazirah because he was not a party to the contract.
Lastly, Johan did not offer any consideration for Hazirah to forfeit the balance of RM5,000. And Hazirah remained silent during Johan's informal negotiations without communicating her acceptance.
Thus, there was <u>no </u><u>contract</u><u> </u>between Johan and Hazirah, and Intan should do well to repay the balance.
Learn more about the elements of a contract at brainly.com/question/8116487
Answer:
Talk to your supervisor before responding.
support me by marking as brainliest:)
Answer:
D.) Rather than Owens’ lacing the Arabica coffee beans with Robusta beans, the producers that supplied Owens with coffee beans had mixed
their Arabica beans with Robusta beans, and marketed them to Owen as pure Arabica. However, the court found that Owens could have
discovered that this was occurring by using reasonable care.
and
B.) Starbucks had been informed by Owens that Owens had laced its marketed Arabica coffee beans with Robusta beans
Explanation:
First wee need to understand what is reasonable care. "Is the degree of caution and concern for the safety of the self and others and ordinarily prudent and rational person would use in the same circumstances".
Unlike Neglicence where is a failure to act reasonable and carefully.
In this case Owens didn´t know, however they failed to provide resonable cause. But he act with concern telling starbucks what happened, but still he is held for damages.
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
Every state court in the United States have jurisdiction over the persons within the territory. The court must have both personal jurisdiction as well as subject jurisdiction so as to have a jurisdiction over a case.
Any court can exercise personal jurisdiction over any defendant unless the statute exists in forum state which explicitly give authorization to the court to have personal jurisdiction over that particular defendant. A defendant must not be a resident of the state in order to have a personal jurisdiction over him by the court.
