Question

Donald borrowed $2000 from Ace Finances Ltd. The agreement stated that the full amount plus interest of $500 was payable on 30 November. Shortly after arranging the loan, Donald lost his job and has been unemployed ever since. Advise Donald in each of the following scenarios: (Note – the issue will be the same in each part) ,write by IRCA form (a) On 10 November, Donald approaches the company, saying: “I have scraped up $2000 but that is all I have. If you take that in full satisfaction and agree not to sue me for the remaining $500 you can have it now.” (b) Donald informs the company that he will sell his car if the company will take the proceeds in lieu of the amount owed. The company agrees even though it plans to sue him at a later stage for the difference. Donald sells his car for $2000, hands over the money on 30 November and, 6 months later, the company sues him for the remaining $500. (c) Donald’s daughter, Ivanka, offers to pay the company $2000 if they agree not to sue her father for the remaining $500. The company agrees so Ivanka hands over the money on 30Nov

Answer 1

(an) On 10 November, Donald approaches the organization, saying: "I have scratched up $2000 yet that is all I have. In the event that you take that in full fulfillment and make a deal to avoid sueing me for the remaining $500 you can have it now."

Donald can utilize this solution for diminish his obligations from the obligation commitment. In the event that the organization consents to take the $2000 in full fulfillment, Donald will pay not exactly the first the concurred terms.

Full fulfillment implies that on the off chance that the organization will consent to the new terms from Donald, at that point the execution of those terms ought to accord the understanding. On the off chance that the organization concurs $2000 and make a deal to avoid sueing Donald, as indicated by the full fulfillment contract term, at that point Donald will be mitigated his obligations from the rest of the obligation.

(b) Donald illuminates the organization that he will sell his vehicle if the organization will take the returns in lieu of the sum owed. The organization concurs despite the fact that it intends to sue him at a later stage for the distinction. Donald sells his vehicle for $2000, hands over the cash on 30 November and, a half year later, the organization sues him for the remaining $500.

In the event that the organization consents to take the returns in lieu of the sum owed, Donald ought to guarantee that the lieu abandonment understanding made after selling the vehicle should express that the organization is waving its rights to recuperate any residual obligations. The organization ought to consent to forgo the rest of the obligations on the off chance that they consent to take the returns in lieu of the sum owed.

Continues in lieu implies that Donald who is the borrower will give back the bank its property without abandonment.

The organization sued Donald on the grounds that, the lieu dispossession understanding may have not expressed that the organization postponed the rest of the obligation.

(c) Donald's little girl, Ivanka, offers to pay the organization $2000 on the off chance that they make a deal to avoid sueing her dad for the remaining $500. The organization concurs so Ivanka hands over the cash on 30 November.

In the event that the organization makes a deal to avoid sueing for the remaining $500, at that point Donald can take this choice. Ivanka will presently be the underwriter to Donald and if the organization will need to sue Donald, they will come after Ivanka.

Given that the organization made a deal to avoid sueing Donald, I would encourage Donald to take this choice.