Question 1. Write four sentences of your opinion, do you agree: quasi contracts are implied in law contracts. These are fictional contracts imposed on parties by a court in the interests of fairness and justice. These are usually imposed to avoid the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of another party.
How is this a contract? In the book they used an example saying that a man is lying unconscious when a doctor fixes him and still makes him pay. Do people not do things out of generosity? What if the man is unable to pay for the medicine used on him? I do not think that those type of things should be in a contract. Or if someone could explain to me what in a little more depth the reason behind quais contracts that would be great.
Question 2. Write four sentences of your opinion: I have worked in a grocery store for many years and in those years we've had many promotions going on. For example in the summer if you slid you club card you are entered in a drawing and could win a car. I have yet heard of someone winning that prize. I think companies do the Pepsi thing or stuff like it a lot. To me there always seems to be a catch, so I don't even try. Another thing that companies do is the, fine barley able to read print, that has some what of the truth in detail, but a huge picture of something you think you will be able to win, that's really not realistic. In regards to the Pepsi case, I think that Pepsi is in the wrong to a certain degree and i feel that the man is at fault also for working so hard to get the points needed without asking of calling Pepsi to find every minute detail about the prizes. With that kind of stuff you have to really pay attention to every little detail. Now I don't think companies should do this nonexistent prizes stuff, I feel it is wrong. So they should make a compromise with each other.
Question 3. Write four sentences of your opinion, do you agree?
Eaver v. grand prix karting association inc. Why would organizations of a race require that all participants sign exculpatory clauses? The exculpatory clauses is a clause that releases a contractual party from liability in the event of monetary or physical injury, no matter who is at fault. Organizations do this to protect themselves from lawsuits and problems. in the case above Dorothy signed a clause in 1993 but not one the next year, she was still held liable though for the accident because beaver knew about the clause and still went on with the race. Many companies face problems where people hurt themselves or others, and of there were no contracts for the events like that then people would be suing left and right. This contract is very important for every company big or small to show to an employee or someone interacting with the organization to read the clause and sign in their own will. If they refuse to sign then they would not be able to participate.. this is merely to help companies out. my dad in hos company makes sure every employee signs an exculpatory clause in order to work, for insurance reasons and protection of the business.
Question 4: Write four sentences of your opinion, do you agree?
I don't know what to believe, in that the goal of protecting minors form the consequences of unwise contracts should ever outweigh the goal of encouraging minors to behave in a responsible manner. When I was sixteen and went out to try and buy a car on my own, I was laughed at. It was not allowed, I was not old enough to purchase a car on my own, I couldn't even have the pink slip in my name. so in regards to the dodson v. shrader case I don't feel that the shraders are responsible to pay the sixteen year old kid back, I do think they should have never sold the kid the car. I don't really understand the how they could have sold him the car if they new his age, I would think they would know better. This case is weird there are many factors that both party's could be at fault. If the shraders sold the boy a car that had a pre-existing problem, that is wrong you are suppose to inform the buyer of every condition the car is in, so the buyer can make the decision to buy or not to buy. The boy bought a car under age that had a problem and decided not to fix the problem and in turn the cars engine blew up, that was the boy's fault. Then the car was hit that is the driver of the pickup trucks fault, I think that is a ethical problem on the drivers behalf. So I don't really understand minors should be responsible to a degree, if we allow them to take no responsibility that will not be a good thing when they become adults and have to have responsibility.