Yes. Yes. Even though the saleman had no idea of the circumstances surrounding the vehicle, Lester was provided inaccurate information. This constitutes fraud. Striker v. Graham Pest Control Co. states that if there’s an obligation to disclose information, then the plaintiff’s reliance upon the provided information is enough evidence of misrepresentation. Striker, Striker, Inc. 1992. Lester was able to pay a much higher price for his car if he knew the full story. Lester paid a much higher price for the car because the vehicle was misrepresented as having never been involved in an accident.
Odessa is unable to enforce the pledge because she lacks concern. Because consideration received prior to making a contract legally binding is not sufficient, consideration must be given while it is being offered. Odessa’s help in extinguishing fire was not sufficient compensation. Because her circumstances don’t meet legal requirements, Odessa cannot use promissory isoppel to enforce the promise. A promise must be unambiguous and the guarantee of the other party cannot be interpreted as binding. The plaintiff must also prove that the promise caused them harm.
Because the nephew pledged to quit using alcohol and cigarettes, the case should be decided for him. According to the contract principle, William E. Story II could claim the promise sum from the uncle’s inheritance. The idea is that any promise exchanged for performance can be legally binding if it provides sufficient compensation (Contract).