On June 1, Jen enters into an oral contract to work as a sales consultant for B&O. Employment is to begin on Sep. 1. On June 31, Jen receives a letter signed by B&O's President stating that the company is revoking the employment contract entered into on June 1, because they have decided to employ a Phile consulting firm rather than hire a full-time consultant. It will not be necessary for her to report to work and they will not be paying the agreed-upon salary of $25,000. The employment contract
a. Is unenforceable because it violates the Statute of Frauds
b. Is enforceable because Jen made part performance
c. Is valid and enforceable by Jen
d. Is unforceable because it violates the Statute of Limitations
I think D
Claims not discharged by backruptcy are
a. those resulting from intentional torts
b. loads from federal
c. taken for alimony and child support
I think all above
The first is an instance that the contract had to be in writing.
Yes, all of those.
so the first answer not D?
To answer the first question, we need to analyze the given information and apply legal principles to determine the validity and enforceability of the employment contract.
First, Jen entered into an oral contract with B&O on June 1 to work as a sales consultant. However, on June 31, B&O revoked the contract and stated that they would not be paying the agreed-upon salary, as they decided to employ a consulting firm instead.
The key legal principle involved in this scenario is the concept of a valid contract. Generally, for a contract to be valid and enforceable, it must have four elements: offer, acceptance, consideration, and legal capacity. However, there are exceptions, such as contracts governed by the Statute of Frauds.
The Statute of Frauds requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable. However, it is important to note that employment contracts are generally not required to be in writing under the Statute of Frauds. Therefore, option A, which suggests that the contract is unenforceable because it violates the Statute of Frauds, is incorrect.
Part performance, mentioned in option B, refers to situations where one party has partially performed the contract obligations. In this case, there is no indication that Jen has performed any part of her obligations on the contract, so this option is also incorrect.
Option D suggests that the contract is unenforceable because it violates the Statute of Limitations. However, the Statute of Limitations governs the timeframe within which a legal claim can be filed, not the enforceability of a contract. Therefore, option D is also incorrect.
This leaves us with option C, which states that the employment contract is valid and enforceable by Jen. Based on the provided information, there is no legal basis to suggest that the contract is invalid or unenforceable. Therefore, option C is the correct answer.
Next, regarding the claims not discharged by bankruptcy, we need to consider which claims are exempt from discharge in bankruptcy proceedings.
Bankruptcy provides individuals or businesses with relief from overwhelming debt by eliminating or reducing their obligations through a court-supervised process. However, not all claims are discharged or eliminated in this process.
Option A suggests that claims resulting from intentional torts are not discharged in bankruptcy. This is generally correct since obligations arising from intentional torts, such as fraud or assault, are typically not dischargeable.
Option B mentions "loads from federal," which appears to be a typo or unclear wording. If it was meant to say "loans from federal," it is incorrect, as federal student loans, for example, are generally not dischargeable in bankruptcy.
Option C states that claims taken for alimony and child support are not discharged in bankruptcy. This is correct because obligations related to alimony and child support are typically non-dischargeable.
Based on this analysis, the correct answer is option C. Claims resulting from intentional torts and claims taken for alimony and child support are generally not discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.