Cox engaged Datz as her agent. It was mutually agreed that Datz ...

[mikaylakyoung]

Cox engaged Datz as her agent. It was mutually agreed that Datz would not disclose that he was acting as Cox's agent. Instead, he was to deal with prospective customers as if he were a principal acting on his own behalf. This he did and made several contracts for Cox. Assuming Cox, Datz, or the customer seeks to avoid liability on one of the contracts involved, which of the following statements is correct?
 a. Cox must ratify the Datz contracts in order to be held liable.
  b. Datz has no liability once he discloses that Cox was the real principal.
  c. The third party can avoid liability because he believed he was dealing with Datz as a principal.
  d. The third party may choose to hold either Datz or Cox liable.

Question 2

In Hearts Bluff Game Ranch v. U.S., Hearts purchased a large piece of land that the Army Corps said could be used as mitigation property for wetlands purposes. Later, the state of Texas announced it was building a water reservoir that would put Hearts under water, so it could no longer be used for wetlands mitigation. Hearts sued for uncompensated taking as the property was more valuable for mitigation than under a reservoir. The appeals court held that no compensation was due as Hearts was never granted a right that could be enforced.
 a. True
  b. False
  Indicate whether the statement is true or false

[coyin]

Answer to Question 1

.C

Answer to Question 2

TRUE

[mikaylakyoung]

Correct answers!

[coyin]

Great! Please up vote