In Certified Fire Protection v. Precision Construction, Precision accepted a winning bid from Certified for it to install a fire suppression sprinkler system. Later the two parties got into a fight over some details in the contract, which was never signed. The courts held that the contract was:
a. a binding contract had been formed, even though only one of the parties had signed the agreement
b. a binding contract was never formed because the parties, despite not signing, clearly intended to comply with the terms originally agreed to in the document
c. there was no binding contract because Certified failed to accept in the manner prescribed in the contract that was offered
d. there was no binding contract because Precision failed to make the initial payment needed to bindCertified
e. none of the other choices are correct
b
You might also like to view...
Independent projects are projects that if accepted or rejected, do NOT affect the cash flows of other projects
Indicate whether the statement is true or false
Cameron Dunphee runs the marketing department of a large electronics firm. This firm operates in an extremely competitive business environment. Cameron wants to ensure that he is involved in all the daily decisions and that there is a clear chain of communication between himself and his marketing employees. He believes that his extensive marketing experience makes him the best person for making all the major marketing decisions. Cameron believes all employees should act together as a cohesive unit and know their roles. Under Cameron Dunphee, the marketing department most likely has a _______________ structure
A. decentralized B. informal C. demoralizing D. opportunistic E. centralized
Which of the following best describes a fraudulent cash scheme to overstate cash assets at year end by recording deposits in transit in both the account from which the cash is withdrawn and the account to which it is transferred?
a. Lapping of cash. b. Kiting of cash. c. Embezzlement of cash. d. Restrictive endorsements of cash.
On May 1, 20xx, Bryson Corporation had 200,000 shares of $100 par value common stock outstanding with a market value of $160 per share. On May 2, 20xx, Bryson announced a 4-for-1 stock split. After the split, the par value of the stock
a. remained the same as before the split. b. was reduced to $25 per share. c. was reduced by $40 per share. d. was reduced by $25 per share.