1. Explain the difference between modification of a contract at common law and
modification under the code.
In U.S common law and this modification under the code are the laws which pertain. This one
which was under the code the main purpose of establishing it was to harmonize all the laws in
the 50 state in U.S. The another one is a common law and this one deal with the real estate,
services, assets and any contract that is employed. While the other law mainly deals with the
goods sold as well as securities. If there are changes made the common law has a right to decline
it or counter offer of the offer. While on the other law does not have any negative effective
towards the minor changes. In the side of terms, common law mainly focuses on the terms such
as quantity, price, time of performance and the appearance of the work. While the other law only
main focus is the quantity term. The limitation state in the common law while is four to six years
in the other law is four years. Impossibility such as calamities like a death of parties concerned or
destruction of the subject matter can only make the contract in the common law be discharged.
While on the other side, a contract can be discharged only due to impracticability. Since privities
of contract might be required when suing as per common law. While on the other side it is not
required. Punitive destruction of case fraud in common law is not allowed. While at the other
side a bona fide purchaser must get a title which is good in the case (August, R., Mayer, D., &
Bixby, M. (2009).
2. Explain the differences between a disputed and an undisputed debt.
Disputed debts this are the debts that you can start up and say you don't owe them regardless of
whether it is true you owe them or you don't owe them. While on the other hand, undisputed
debts are those debts which you owe them and you are sure you owe them and you don't need to
be told. While on this undisputed debt you can admit you owe them but you are not going to pay
them, while on the disputed debt you can say you don't owe them.
3. Would an off-duty police officer who catches a criminal suspect in the city where he
works be eligible for a reward offered for the criminal's capture? Why or why not?
No, they should not be rewarded. The power of the off-duty police officer is mostly is more
concerned in the different institutions. Hence that police officer who is off-duty they don't
disserve to be rewarded even if they arrest a criminal while they are not at their duty that day
since because that is their job they have performed. If an officer who is off-duty if he/she accept
the reward for arresting a criminal he/she should be disqualified as a police officer, this is
because that is like paying him/her twice. And if this rewarding will accept that shows that still
the police officer can also take money from the criminals and let them go.
4. Explain how a composition agreement works. Why would a creditor be willin...