Ken, a research chemist, has been promised a fellowship with a stipend of $10,000 to do research on synthetic fuel oil. Under the terms of the fellowship, Ken is free to use the money as he sees fit. Ken decides to build his own laboratory, so he will
not have to rent one. He hires a carpenter who begins working on shelving and cabinets in the laboratory. Then Ken receives a telegram saying the fellowship has been canceled. No reason is given for the cancellation. If Ken sues, will he be able to collect the money from the foundation which promised the fellowship? Explain your answer using legal terminology.
It might be argued that since no work product is required, there was no consideration for the fellowship. Therefore it may be revoked. However, Ken has detrimentally relied on the promise of the fellowship, and under the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the courts would in all likelihood stop the grantors from rescinding the fellowship.
You might also like to view...
Which of the following is LEAST likely one of the ethical issues faced by most sales managers?
A. Employee rights B. Sales territories C. Sales pressure D. Personnel substance abuse E. Benefits flexibility
Briefly discuss "actual cause" and "proximate cause," and explain the test for determining whether each of these necessary elements of negligence are present in a given case.
What will be an ideal response?
Total actual overhead minus total budgeted overhead at the actual input production level equals the
a. variable overhead spending variance. b. total overhead efficiency variance. c. total overhead spending variance. d. total overhead volume variance.
Team-written documents and presentations are standard in most organizations because collaboration produces a better product
Indicate whether the statement is true or false