Q1:
Rights of any contract, unless the contract specifically prohibits it, can be sold. Under this there is no reason the Bethlehem Sandwich Shop would not be able to sell its contract to Smith. That being said, as BSS is using Quizno’s name and franchise and this is what it is transferring to Smith through the purchase of a contract, they would have to notify Quizno’s. As Quizno’s has the ability to reject franchisees, a change of ownership would constitute a large enough risk to Quizno’s that they would have to approve the transfer as Smith is an unknown entity. By BSS notifying and paying a release fee of 25,000$, Quizno’s accepted the transfer and BSS released themselves from the contract meaning they are no longer responsible. …show more content…
In the same manner a company can stop a former employee from working in the same industry for a limited amount as they may have an inside edge due to their previous experience, Smith can prevent BSS from doing the same. The only way to reject the non-compete clause is for it to be over-broad, however it is not as it is restricting it only to the fast food industry and only within a two mile …show more content…
While Baby M is a human life, in no way is one’s pension of a similar level of sanctity. In the same way we allow payday loans, having the ability to sacrifice future income for a lump sum is in no way an unfamiliar concept. Even in the case of Baby M, as long as the child is going to a loving home where it will be cared for there is not anything inherently wrong with the concept. Many unwanted children are born, whats wrong with giving them to parents who would care for them and compensating the parents. That being said the argument against it is that it puts desperate people in a situation where they could easily ruin their lives. Law has the ability to determine public policy, and overall legalizing both Baby M and the purchasing of pensions allows desperate people to put themselves in even worse