Sample Business Law And Legal Environment Paper

Homework Question on Business Law

The Book is called Anderson’s Business Law and Legal Environment Comprehensive Volume 22e Chapter 15) 1. Sarah’s house caught on fire. Through the prompt assistance of her neighbor Odessa, the fire was quickly extinguished. In gratitude, Sarah promised to pay Odessa $1,000. Can Odessa enforce this promise? 8. Sears, Roebuck and Co. promised to give Forrer permanent employment. Forrer sold his farm at a loss to take the job. Shortly after beginning work, he was discharged by Sears, which claimed that the contract could be terminated at will. Forrer claimed that promissory estoppel prevented Sears from terminating the contract. Was he correct? [Forrer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 153 N.W.2d 587 (Wis.)]

Homework Answer on Business Law

The case of Sarah and Odessa involves a benefit-detriment approach. In such an approach, consideration is defined as a benefit received by the promisor or a detriment that is incurred by the promise (Twomey, Jennings, & Greene 305). In this case, Odessa’s act of assisting extinguish the fire was a detriment to him. Also, the fire being extinguished was a legal benefit to Sarah, who is the promisor in this situation.

Sarah promised to pay Odessa $1000 because of the benefit she received from Odessa’s assistance in extinguishing the fire. There is consideration in this case, and Sarah should keep her promise of paying $1000 to Odessa. The fact that there is consideration means that Odessa can enforce the promise.

Homework Help

In the second case, Forrer was correct in his claim that promissory estoppel prevented Sears from terminating the contract. Under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, a court of law can prevent a promisor from asserting that his or her promise cannot be enforced because the promise gave no consideration for the promise. This doctrine can be applied on various occasions, one of them being when the promisee relies on the promise in some definite and substantial manner (Twomey, Jennings, & Greene 314). Based on the doctrine, Sears was not allowed to terminate the contract.