Author Question: Negotiations between Dave and Mary resulted in the following agreement: Dave would sell his property ... (Read 229 times)

luvbio · **on:** Aug 7, 2021

Negotiations between Dave and Mary resulted in the following agreement: Dave would sell his property to Mary for the sum of $150 000, closing date to be August 10, 2004. When the two completed their discussion, Mary paid Dave $5000 as part payment of the purchase price and received a receipt. The contract was not in writing. On August 10, Mary tendered the remainder of the money, but Dave refused to convey the property. Mary sued Dave for breach of contract. On these facts, which of the following is true? (Assume that all facts can be proved.)
◦ Mary cannot enforce the agreement because she had not paid Dave all of the money.
◦ Mary can enforce this contract if the receipt specified that the part payment was for the property in question.
◦ Mary cannot enforce the agreement because all of the consideration was not paid.
◦ Mary cannot enforce this contract because the contract was not in writing.
◦ Mary cannot enforce this contract because the contract was not evidenced in writing.

C.mcnichol98 · **Reply #1 on:** Aug 7, 2021

A FREE account is required to view all solutions!

Lorsum iprem. Lorsus sur ipci. Lorsem sur iprem. Lorsum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipci. Lorsum sur iprium, valum sur ipci et, vala sur ipci. Lorsem sur ipci, lorsa sur iprem. Valus sur ipdi. Lorsus sur iprium nunc, valem sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsum sur iprium. Valem sur ipdi. Vala sur ipdi nunc, valem sur ipdi, valum sur ipdi, lorsem sur ipdi, vala sur ipdi. Valem sur iprem nunc, lorsa sur iprium. Valum sur ipdi et, lorsus sur ipci. Valem sur iprem. Valem sur ipci. Lorsa sur iprium. Lorsem sur ipci, valus sur iprem. Lorsem sur iprem nunc, valus sur iprium.

Answer Preview

Only 60% of students answer this correctly