PLEASE, HELP ME OUT!!! Look over the attached article titled \"Notre Dame Sues C

Question

PLEASE, HELP ME OUT!!!

Look over the attached article titled "Notre Dame Sues Caterer Mistakenly Given $29G Gratuity." Notre Dame must prove what in regard to gift law in order to get a judgment for $29, 357.13? There was no intent to give the $29G gratuity. There was no delivery of the $29G gratuity. There was no acceptance of the $29G gratuity. That Notre Dame had a contract to pay the caterer the $29G gratuity. That Notre Dame had given a gift mortis. I put a gift of diamond earrings under our Christmas tree, and told my wife that the box, with the earrings in it, is her Christmas present, and 1 told her that she cannot open the present until Christmas. A few days before Christmas, my wife and I got in a fight, so I got the present from under the tree, and took it back to the jewelry store to get my $1, 200 back. At Christmas, my wife asks me about her present, and I told her that I returned it. Imagine that she tells me that I cannot do that since it was her present. Which of the following is correct? My wife is correct and T her the earrings or the $1, 200. My wife is correct, so answer A is correct and she can turn me in to the police for theft, if she is still upset with me. My wife is not entitled to the earrings, because not all elements of gift law were present. My wife had a legal contract with me and I am responsible for her damages. None of these The attached article titled "Kokomo to remove damaged signs, " deals with zoning law that we covered in class. The signs did not comply with the zoning ordinance, but had been in existence before the zoning ordinance, so they had a legal right to continue to be used, until they were damaged by the tornado. Since they were damaged, they cannot be fixed or replaced, because they do not comply with the zoning ordinance. Before the tornado damaged the signs, what law gave the owners of the signs the right to keep them, even though they did not comply with the zoning ordinance? nuisance law eminent domain restrictive covenants nonconforming use prescriptive easement

Explanation / Answer

Ans 1 - There was no intent to give the 29G gratuity. It was a mistake on the university sde.

Ans 2 - My wife is not entitled to the earrings, because not all elements of gift law were present. The delivery and acceptance element of the gift law is not present. Only there was an intent.

Ans 3 - nonconforming use. It is a use of any property which was allowed under a zoning regulation however, when the regulations changed it is disallowed.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse P
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.