Stephen Muka owned U. S. Robotics. He hired his brother Chris to work in the company. His letter promised Chris $1 million worth of Robotics stock at the end of one year, "provided you work reasonably hard & smart at things in the next year." (We should all have such brothers.) Chris arrived at Robotics and worked the full year, but toward the end of the year, Stephen died. His estate refused to give Chris the stock, claiming their agreement was a personal satisfaction contract and only Stephen could decide whether Chris had earned the reward. Comment. write your answer in IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application of the rule, and, Conclusion) format.

The contract between Stephen Muka and Chris is a person satisfaction contract which is binding

Explanation:

Contracts  that are often refer to as personal satisfaction contract for which a promise is involved will make it a subjective personal evaluation of the performance of the one who made the promise.

In the given question,Stephen Muka hired the services of his brother Chris in the company. at the end of the year a letter was given to him with a promise of 1 million of stocks from the company, so long as he will be dedicated in his work, by working smart and hard at things in the coming year.

Chris worked very hard and was dedicated to his work, but unfortunately before the end of the year Stephen had died.

However, the contract between them is a personal one or personal satisfaction contract, but the estate of the deceased comes into the shoes of the deceased after succeeding the company and they know it is binding to them (estate)of the deceased  to give him the reward.

i would have to say its c

um sure