Instead of canceling their contract, william, laverne, and laverne's mother, irma, form another contract in which they all agree that william will paint irma's home instead of laverne's. this new agreement is known as:
a. a breach of contract.
b. substantial performance.
c. a reformation.
d. a novation.

as i understand, it's one of the last two. probably a novation,

Daniel owns 100 shares of abc corporation's common stock. abc uses the fair value option, and recent declines in the firm's credit rating have caused the value of the firm's outstanding bonds payable to drop by 10%. daniel feels this is good news, but he wants to know what you think about the situation. which of the following represents your best response? a : "this situation may be positive for you in that the change in abc's credit standing indicates that the value of the firm's assets is likely increasing. however, the drop in bond value may negate any positive effects on your bottom line, because it means your claim on the firm's assets is simultaneously decreasing." b : "actually, this is bad news all around. the drop in the value of abc's bonds payable means shareholders' claims on the firm's assets have decreased. moreover, abc's declining credit rating means that the firm's assets are probably also dropping in value, thus magnifying your losses even more." c : "on the surface, this seems like good news because it means your claim on the firm's assets has increased. however, the drop in creditworthiness may also indicate that abc's assets are declining in value, thus offsetting any gains associated with the drop in bonds payable." d : "you're right! this is good news because it means that abc's debtholders have a decreased claim on the firm's assets. as a result, the firm's existing shareholders"like you"have seen their claim on the firm's assets increase."

The larger the investment you make, the easier it will be to: get money from other sources. guarantee cash flow. buy insurance. streamline your products.

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?