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.
Answer:
I not able to understand question.
Answer:
wududhedyeydyegedyeyegegdheheueueue
The use of information to falsely accuse a company such as it occurred when XYZ ran a story that was not related to the restaurant they wanted to accuse is an example of False light (option D)
The false light is:
- A grievance of the laws of the United States that refers to defamation.
- They include a person's right to protection against false publicity to the public.
- This right must be in balance with freedom of expression
According to the above, in the situation, the cable channel XYZ incurred false light because they showed a video of a restaurant chain different from the restaurant chain in which there was an outbreak of E. coli.
Therefore, the chain of restaurants in the video would be affected by defamation because it did not correspond to the case of the E. coli outbreak. So the correct answer is D. False light.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/8512832
