Legal dispute between two or more people

WALA # 1
This type of assignment will provide you with an opportunity to act like a judge. You will be given a factual scenario that forms a basis for a legal dispute between two or more people. This will be followed by two questions you will need to answer. The first will always ask you to summarize the law that underlies the dispute, and the second will ask you to analyze the facts and reach conclusion on the dispute. I will always provide you with the page number in the e-textbook where the law can be located.
Factual Scenario:
Susan and Bill Smith are married and the owners of a classic car, a 1967 Corvette Stingray, which is worth $100,000. The car is almost exclusively driven by Mr. Smith (Susan hates the car), but the title is held in both their names (i.e., Bill and/or Susan Smit). This would allow either to sell the car if they wished. Susan discovers that Bill has been cheating on her, and while he is away for a week on a business trip, advertises the car for sale at $100, and sells it to Ryan Jones, the first buyer to respond to the advertisement. When Bill returns home and discovers what happened he files suit against Ryan to get the car back. In the complaint, Bill claims that the consideration for the sale was not adequate - in other words, you can't sell a $100,000 car for $100.
Is he right?
Questions:

1. Fully summarize the law related to consideration and adequacy of consideration. (pgs. 370-381, generally for consideration, and specifically, 373-377 on the adequacy of consideration.)
2. Analyze the facts in the factual scenario and decide whether the consideration was adequate. In your answer to this question, you must provide specific reasons based on the facts for your ruling.

WALA # 2
Factual Scenario
Debra opened a fitness studio in a shopping center owned by Dave. The lease agreement between Debra and Dave was for five (5) years and she was to pay $5,000 per month. However, Debra had a clause inserted that read, "Debra will have the right to terminate the contract in the first three months if she determines memberships at the studio are not sufficient to sustain the business." In the first month of operation, Debra had very few people sign up for memberships and was, therefore, closing the business and getting out of the lease under the above-referenced provision. Dave, aware of her problem, orally offered to reduce the rent to $2,000 a month for the next three months to get her up and going (this was one month beyond the period of time she would have to get out of the lease). Debra, based on the offer by Dave. verbally accepted and kept her business operating.
After the expiration of the lower rent period, Dave notified her that the rent was now back up to $5,000, and also demanded payment for the additional $3,000 per month for the preceding two months. Debra objected asserting that they had entered into an agreement for her to only pay the lower rent. Dave, who went to law school but never became an attorney, said the agreement was not valid because it was an oral agreement involving an interest in land.
Questions:

1. Fully summarize the law related to (1) writing requirements under the Statute of Frauds and whether or not contracts involving interest in land need to be in writing; and (2) the exception to the writing requirement known as Promissory Estoppel. (See pgs. 433-439, and 445).
2. Analyze the facts in the factual scenario and decide if (1) if the type of agreement that Dave offered needed to be in writing; and (2) assuming it did, whether the exception under Promissory Estoppel applies. In your answer to this question, you must provide specific reasons based on the facts for your ruling.
   WALA # 3
   Factual Scenario
   Carl is 17 and wants to buy a car so he can take his date to the senior prom on Saturday. He discovers his adult neighbor, Richard, is selling a car for $20,000. Carl has saved $18,000 from his job at a local grocery store over the last two years and has another $2,000 in savings bonds his grandmother gave him. Carl goes over to Richard's home and offers to pay $18,000 that day, and the remaining $2,000 in a week from the Saturday after the prom (it will take him a week to cash in the savings bonds). Richard agrees, and Carl pays the money and takes the car. On the Tuesday after the prom, Carl turns 18, and on Wednesday he sends an email to Richard saying he will be by on Saturday to pay the last $2,000. On Thursday, however, Carl's father finds out he used his savings to buy the car and demands he gets the money back from Richard. Carl agrees. But on Saturday, when Carl goes back over to Richard's house, Richard refuses to give the money back and demands the payment of the last $2,000. Carl refuses.
   Richard files a lawsuit for the remaining $2,000, and Carl files a countersuit to disaffirm the contract based on the fact that he was a minor when he entered into the contract.
   Questions:
3. Fully summarize the law related to (1) a minor's right to disaffirm a contract, and (2) express and implied ratification after the minor turns 18. (See pgs. 389-393.)
4. Analyze the facts in the factual scenario and decide whether Carl can disaffirm this contract because he was a minor when he entered into it. In your answer to this question, you must provide specific reasons based on the facts for your ruling.