Budget and Goodyear sued Hoffman for payment of the car rental and tires. Is Hoffman liable on his oral promise to pay for the car rental and the four new tires? Why or why not?
Shane Quadri contacted Don Hoffman, an employee of Al J. Hoffman & Co. (Hoffman Agency), to procure car insurance. Later, Quadri’s car was stolen on October 25 or 26. Quadri contacted Hoffman, who arranged with Budget Rent-a-Car for a rental car for Quadri until his car was recovered. Hoffman authorized Budget Rent-a-Car to bill the Hoffman Agency. Later, when the stolen car was recovered, Hoffman telephoned Goodyear and arranged to have four new tires put on Quadri’s car to replace those damaged during the theft. Budget and Goodyear sued Hoffman for payment of the car rental and tires. Is Hoffman liable on his oral promise to pay for the car rental and the four new tires? Why or why not?
By inscribing the lease contract and tax statement, Person Q may have simply secured the benefits of the transactions sanctioned by Person D. As the acclaim was elongated solely to the company H, the law may not be applicable to the verbal oath of Person D. Henceforth, the action may be bonafide against Person D.
Here the settlement may be made against Person D. Even though the law of frauds makes unlawful verbal agreements to pay the dues of a third person, it may not apply to the original pledge that involves paying for services provided to a third person. Person D may have initiated the deal with Person B and Person G through a phone call, specifying that Person Q was protected, and may have approved the schedule of Company H.