Question Completion:
1. Was the contract a bilateral or a unilateral contract?
2. Does Chenard win?
3. Is it ethical for Marcel Motors to refuse to give the automobile to Chenard?
Answer:
Chenard v. Marcel Motors, 387 A.2d 596, 1978 Me. Lexis 911 (Maine 1978)
1. A unilateral contract existed when Marcel Motors made the offer to any golfer who shot a hole-in-one for a new 1974 Dodge Colt.
2. Chenard wins. Marcel Motors is obliged to supply him with the new 1974 Dodge Colt as promised because Chenard completed the stated task by shooting a hole-in-one. Chenard wins, not because of his fee or participation in the golf tournament, he wins because Marcel Motors is obliged to fulfill its promise.
3. It is not ethical for Marcel Motors to refuse to give the automobile to Chenard. It was not forced to make the promise. No excuse, including illegality under gambling, could not exonerate it from its obligation to fulfill its promise.
Explanation:
According to the law, a unilateral contract is a contract agreement in which, for example, Marcel Motors promised to offer a new 1974 Dodge Colt to a golfer after the golfer had shot a hole-in-one. In this unilateral contract, the offeror (Marcel Motors) was the only party with a contractual obligation. Unilateral contracts are primarily one-sided but remain very legal.
The answer is A two-house Congress
Hope this helps-
The fact that state governments are required to enforce restraining orders placed on stalkers and batterers in other states is a result of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
<h3>What is a constitution?</h3>
Constitution is a legal document, which contains the principles and procedures by which a country is being governed.
Hence, the fact that state governments are required to enforce restraining orders placed on stalkers and batterers in other states is a result of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution.
Learn more about constitution here : brainly.com/question/470736
#SPJ1
Answer:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Explanation:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law in 2008 to ensure that the discrimination against persons with disabilities in jobs, schools and all places are not found. It guarantees equal opportunity for persons with disabilities in employment and general accommodations. The protection this law gives to individuals is similar to that given to people based on race, gender, age and religion.
So by relieving Oscar, who has degenerative eye disease of his employment is a violation of the provisions of ADA.
