SOLVED

[Bank Robbery] Safe Bank was robbed of a significant sum of cash by a robber later identified as Victor Victory. Safe Bank offered a reward of $10,000 to anyone who captured or provided information leading to the capture of Victor. Kareem, a police officer in town, promised Safe Bank officials that he would apprehend Victor. While on duty, Kareem arrested Victor at a restaurant in town. He found Victor after Ursula, Victor’s girlfriend, told Kareem about various places Victor enjoyed eating. The bank refuses to pay either Ursula or Kareem any of the reward money. 76) In a lawsuit between the bank and Ursula, regarding the reward funds, who is likely to prevail and why? A) The bank is likely to prevail because no valid bilateral contract existed. B) The bank is likely to prevail because Ursula only provided past consideration. C) The bank is likely to prevail because Ursula was tainted by being Victor’s girlfriend. D) Ursula is likely to prevail because an enforceable unilateral contract exists based on her provision of information leading to the capture of Victor. E) Ursula is likely to prevail because a valid bilateral contract existed. [Debt Trouble] Isabella has significant credit card debt following a semester abroad in Italy. Her tuition and living expenses had ended up costing more than she had anticipated. Isabella recently took a business law class and thought that she might be able to find a way out of her troubles. She owed $2,000 to Credit Card Company A and $3,000 to Credit Card Company B. She also owed $2,000 to the local Italian university for tuition and book expenses. Isabella is in negotiations with the university over the amount owed because one of the classes she had originally enrolled in was cancelled halfway through the semester. While the cancellation of that class did not significantly affect her academic career, Isabella thought that she should get at least some deduction on the overall tuition bill. Isabella called Credit Card Company A and told them that she was a student and could not afford to pay the entire $3,000 she owed. The representative of Credit Card Company A, who was working her last day, told Isabella just to pay $50, and that would be considered payment in full. The representative sent Isabella an e-mail to that effect. Isabella was very pleased and immediately quit her job at the campus bookstore, believing that with the reduction from Credit Card Company A, she would have a sufficient amount of extra money. Isabella then called Credit Card Company B and once again pled her case as a student. She talked Credit Card Company B into taking a used car with a blown-up engine worth around $1,000 in exchange for the debt. Transfer details regarding the car were worked out through e-mail. Finally, Isabella sent the university a check for $1,000 marked “paid in full.” Much to her surprise and pleasure, the university did indeed cash the check. Isabella, however, was distraught to find that within 30 days, Credit Card Company A sent her a bill for $1,950, Credit Card Company B sent her a bill for $3,000, and the university sent her a check for $1,000 along with a bill for $2,000. Faced with all these claims, Isabella decided to look for work, and ended up finding work she enjoyed as a translator. Assume all credit card company representatives had authority to make the agreements at issue. 77) What is Credit Card Company A’s best argument in relation to enforcing Isabella’s obligations? A) That student debt is not dischargeable as a matter of law and that the card company owed no obligation to Isabella regardless of statements made. B) That the agreement constituted a bad deal for the card company. C) That no consideration existed for its promise, and that based on Isabella’s circumstances and behavior, enforcing the debt would not result in injustice to Isabella. D) That its promise was clearly an illusory promise that Isabella should have known could not be enforced once the card company discovered the true circumstances. E) That only past consideration was involved. 78) What is Isabella’s best argument in attempting to avoid obligations to Credit Card Company A? A) That the debt became illusory based on the promise made by Credit Card Company A. B) That because of unforeseen circumstances, she should be able to avoid the debt. C) That she reasonably relied to her detriment and that she should be able to enforce the company’s promise under a theory of promissory estoppel. D) That her promise did indeed constitute consideration because of the theory of moral consideration, and Credit Card Company A clearly expressed its concern with student debt. E) That her promise did indeed constitute consideration because it allowed Credit Card Company A to report forgiveness of debt rather than default on its financial reports. 79) Which of the following should be the result in regard to Isabella’s obligation to Credit Card Company B? A) That because the car is worth only $1,000, nowhere near the amount of the debt, the company is released from its promise. B) That under equitable principles, upon disaffirming the agreement, Isabella may keep the car, and the company must take a deduction of 50% on all amounts due. C) That under equitable principles, upon disaffirming the agreement, Isabella must transfer the car to the company, and the company must take a deduction of 50% on all amounts due after sums received from the sale of the car are credited to Isabella’s account. D) That because Isabella offered and the company accepted a different performance in discharge of the obligation, the company is bound. E) That the company is not bound by its promise because the debt was liquidated. 80) Which of the following would be the result in a majority of states in regard to Isabella’s obligation to the Italian university? A) That in order to satisfy equitable principles, the parties would split the remaining debt with Isabella owing $1,000. B) That because the university offered, through issuance of the check, full repayment, no accord and satisfaction existed; Isabella owes the full $2,000. C) That under the UCC, Isabella would be required to pay the full amount, but the university would be estopped from charging any interest. D) That because the debt was liquidated, no accord and satisfaction occurred, and Isabella owes the full $2,000. E) That because the debt was unliquidated and the university cashed the check, an accord and satisfaction occurred, and Isabela owes nothing. Â Â