Len was behind in his work at the office. He decided to go in for a few hours on Sunday to catch up. He asked a secretary to come in for four hours. He turned on his office TV. Just then, his secretary came in and asked him to sign four letters that she said concerned general office matters. He carelessly signed them without taking his eyes off the TV screen. One of the "letters" was, in fact, a cheque for $500 payable to the secretary. The secretary cashed the cheque at her bank, and when her bank presented the cheque for payment, Len instructed his bank not to honour it. He said that he had been tricked and that his signing it was a big mistake. On these facts, which of the following is true?
◦ Len could avoid his obligation on the cheque on the basis of unconscionability.
◦ Len could avoid his obligation on the cheque on the basis of duress.
◦ Because Len did not know what he was signing, he cannot be held liable.
◦ Len's carelessness in failing to read what he was signing will likely defeat any claim of non est factum.
◦ Undue influence would be Len's best defence on these facts.
Ecology at work
Time Estimates for Specific Office Procedures Cont.
HCPCs Modifiers Used for Medical Office Services Cont.
Work and Gender: Women at Work in India
The deadline is in 2 hours somebody can help me, please!!!
How do resultant force work among different angles?