Multiple Choice
On March 10, Martin entered into an oral contract with Wilson. Under the oral contract, they agreed that Wilson will work for Martin for two years for a salary of $50,000 per year. Wilson quit his job the next day so that he could join Martin. But on March 12, Martin called Wilson and repudiated the contract, stating that he had decided not to hire him after all. If Wilson decides to sue, which of the following is most likely to be true?
A) Wilson may use the doctrine of promissory estoppel to show that he had materially relied on the oral promise and will suffer serious losses if the promise is not enforced.
B) Wilson cannot sue Martin because there was no written contract.
C) Oral contracts are completely voidable and have no weight in the court.
D) Wilson can sue Martin for false imprisonment and unintentional tort because Wilson did not have a written contract, and this becomes the best alternate course of action.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q32: Long-term bilateral contracts need not be in
Q33: Many states require contracts to pay a
Q34: Although the statutes of frauds of all
Q35: Under the Electronic Signatures in Global and
Q36: Under the parol evidence rule, parties cannot
Q38: The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) states that
Q39: Explain what a collateral (guaranty) contract is.
Q40: If the parties used a form contract,
Q41: The U.N. Convention on the International Sale
Q42: A clothing store has opened a credit