Tom sells his father's watch for $100 to sue. he later finds out from his father that the watch was an expensive rolex. tom wants the watch back. what is the best answer as to what the courts would rule? question 13 options: the court would rule in sue's favor because courts seldom inquire into the adequacy of consideration. the court would rule in tom's favor because tom made a mistake. tom's father could demand the watch back because of the 'parental rule doctrine'. none of the above

The court would rule in sue's favor because courts seldom inquire into the adequacy of consideration.

In contracts, consideration just means the exchange of things of value. There has to be an exchange of things of value for there to be an enforceable contract, and in this case a watch was exchanged for money. It is rare for courts to rule on how much consideration is expected because people are generally free to set their own prices and not sell if the price is too low. That is not for a court to decide (in most cases).

i might look it up later.

being suspected of supplying drugs means you are much more likely to be charged. the amount of drugs found on you, and whether you have a criminal record, will be taken into account when a punishment is being decided.

decisions to prosecute are taken by the public prosecution service. the maximum sentences for intent to supply drugs are: