Accounting
Anthropology
Archaeology
Art History
Banking
Biology & Life Science
Business
Business Communication
Business Development
Business Ethics
Business Law
Chemistry
Communication
Computer Science
Counseling
Criminal Law
Curriculum & Instruction
Design
Earth Science
Economic
Education
Engineering
Finance
History & Theory
Humanities
Human Resource
International Business
Investments & Securities
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Medicine
Medicine & Health Science
Nursing
Philosophy
Physic
Psychology
Real Estate
Science
Social Science
Sociology
Special Education
Speech
Visual Arts
Question
In Cavel International, Inc. v. Madigan, Cavel, the only exporter of horsemeat to Europe for human consumption fought an Illinois state law prohibiting the slaughter of horses if the primary reason for slaughter was to produce horsemeat for sale. The court decided:A.Illinois had a legitimate interest in prolonging the lives of certain animals and there was only a minimal effect on interstate or foreign commerce
B.Illinois could enforce the law intrastate but if the meat was exported the law interfered with foreign commerce and was therefore invalid
C.Illinois could enforce the law if it extended to all animals but they could not protect some and ignore others
D.Illinois could not enforce the law because Cavel was the sole company in the state exporting meat and the law targeted them unfairly
Answer
This answer is hidden. It contains 160 characters.
Related questions
Q:
Which of the following involves a third party substitution?
A.novation
B.accord and satisfaction
C.substitute agreement/modification
D.rescission
Q:
In Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United States:
A.Mobil was able to get out of the contract for the $156 million lease because the new law passed at the last minute changed the terms of the original contract amounting to repudiation by the United States.
B.Mobil was able to get out of the contract for the $156 million lease because the new law passed at the last minute changed the terms of the contract, barring certain types of oil exploration, frustrating Mobil's contractual purpose.
C.Mobil could not claim an anticipatory repudiation because even though as new law had been passed, they had not yet filed their oil excavation plan so they could not know whether they were facing a problem.
D.Mobil could not claim an anticipatory repudiation because even though as new law had been passed, it did not substantially change the terms of the original contract.
Q:
Each of the following is a discharge by mutual consent except:
A.accord and satisfaction.
B.novation.
C.rescission.
D.frustration of purpose.
Q:
Lisa is doing some landscaping around her house and ordered a delivery of top soil. Her agreement says that the delivery will be made on Wednesday and payment for the soil will be due when the truck arrives at her house. This is an example of a concurrent condition.
Q:
Kathy and Tom have entered into a contract in which Mike has been named and included as an intended beneficiary by Kathy. Should Tom or Kathy breach the contract, Mike may sue both Tom and Kathy for breach of contract.
Q:
In an assignment or delegation, any third party rights or duties occur after the contract is formed.
Q:
When an assignment is made, the assignee has the right to reform the contract and change the obligor's rights and duties as they wish.
Q:
Unless a contract for services calls for unique personal services, that contract cannot be discharged by impossibility.
Q:
Robert and Philip are the named beneficiaries under Alan's insurance policy. Robert and Philip would specifically be considered to be ________ beneficiaries.
Q:
A court order to refrain from performing a particular act is known as _______.
Q:
When the parties perform their obligations in good faith in order to complete the contract, this completion is called _______.
Q:
What does the parole evidence rule say and how does it affect contracts?
Q:
Why is it so important that the law of contracts be so ordered and strong with regard particularly to the business world?
Q:
Alan lives in a beach front home and one morning discovers an adult woman who has washed up on shore and is unconscious. Alan takes her into his home and administers aid to her. She awakens after a few hours but has amnesia, not knowing who she is or how she ended up washed ashore on his property. Alan cares for her for two weeks when her memory returns. She fell overboard while sailing with her wealthy parents on their yacht. She tells him that her name is April and she provides him with contact information for her parents. Naturally, when Alan calls they are ecstatic. They tell Alan that they will fly in to pick her up the next day and that he should tally up his expenses and that they will reimburse him for his costs. When they arrive, Alan gives them the cost sheet which they refuse to pay. Does Alan have any rights against the parents? Does Alan have any rights against April?
Q:
In Lucy v. Zehmer, the two parties were drinking in a bar when Lucy offers to buy Zehmer's farm. After some negotiation a written contract was executed. Zehmer claimed that the whole episode was only a joke and he never intended to sell the farm. The court determined that:
A.since Zehmer claimed to be "high as a Georgia pine" and it was only the liquor talking, there was no contract.
B.since the contract was written without lawyers present, it was likely not really serious so no contract was actually formed.
C.because the terms were fair, the parties are bound by the contract regardless of their intent or capacity.
D.because negotiations and modifications to the written agreement lasted between 30-40 minutes, it appeared that both parties were serious so even if Zehmer had no objective intent to sell the farm he is still bound by his actions and the contract was enforceable.
Q:
Which of the following promises ordinarily need not be in writing to be enforceable?
A.Promises made as a part of a prenuptial agreement.
B.An agreement to sell of a car for $1,500.
C.A lease of a warehouse for 24 months.
D.A $1,000 agreement with a personal trainer for 10 sessions.
Q:
A professor tells a student that if she writes a 5,000 word paper on the evils of plagiarism by May 13th, he will pay the student $750.00.
A.the offer is for a unilateral contract
B.if the student gives the paper to the professor on May 14th, the money is owed because the student came close and did get the paper done
C.this contract is only enforceable if it's in writing
D.this contract is only enforceable if the student verbally or in writing accepts the offer prior to beginning the paper
Q:
Brandi orally tells landscaper Mike "If you trim my bush I'll pay you $50.00." Mike trims her bush. Which of the following is correct?
A.this was a unilateral contract
B.this was a bilateral contract
C.this was an implied contract
D.this was a quasi contract
Q:
Hillary is a nerdy bookworm couch potato who rarely goes out of her home except to go to work as a deskbound CPA. She wears a sweater almost every day including during the summer and is always complaining about being cold. Edmund, a coworker, tells Hillary that he will give her $1M if she climbs Mt. Everest. Edmund doesn't believe that she'd even give the offer a second thought. Hillary, without saying anything to anyone, starts an intensive training program to whip herself into shape and six months later, during her vacation, in fact, climbs Mt. Everest. Upon returning to work, she presents Edmund a picture of herself on the summit of Mt. Everest and demands her $1M. Edmund tells her that they never had a contract so he owes her nothing and Hillary claims that the money is owed based on promissory estoppel.
A.promissory estoppel only applies if Edmund was very rich because $1M is a lot of money
B.promissory estoppel applies whether Edmund was rich or not
C.promissory estoppel does not apply because Edmond had no reason to believe that Mary would rely on his promise
D.promissory estoppel does not apply because Mary must announce that she accepts his offer for it to create an obligation to pay
Q:
The legal detriments exchanged by the parties must be equal, or reasonably close to equal, for consideration to be valid.
Q:
If you give a truthful answer to a question during contract negotiations, but something then happens that makes that answer now false, you are not obligated to notify the other party unless they ask the question again.
Q:
After an offer is made, the offeror may revoke that offer at any time, even if the offeree has not been given a reasonable period of time to decide whether or not to accept.
Q:
Larry has had a few beers and is starting to get a bit drunk. He isn't acting strange and he's conducting conversations with others slurring only an occasional word or two. Larry, should he enter into a contract in this state would be considered mentally incompetent and his contract would be void.
Q:
An option contract refers to the choices that one has when entering into a contract.
Q:
All bilateral contracts are express.
Q:
A minor's contract for actual necessities does not require that the minor be mentally competent for the contract to be valid.
Q:
If a 17 year old enters into a contract to purchase a car, that contract is ________ at the minor's option until they reach the age of 18.
Q:
Consideration in a small or minimal amount that is written into a contract but never actually paid is called ________ consideration.
Q:
Prioritizing moral values for an organization and ensuring that behaviors are aligned with those values is known as _______.
Q:
That society is best served when companies aggressively seek a competitive advantage and that ethical violations will eventually harm companies reflects the narrow view or ________ hand theory of corporate social responsibility.