below is an excerpt from the home loan contract kyle signed with his bank.
the sum of the principal of the loan and all applicable interest will be divided into 360 monthly payments according to the amortization schedule.
the buyer shall make each monthly payment by the first day of the month it is due. a payment not received by the first day of the month it is due will be considered delinquent. a payment not received by the fifteenth day of the month it is due will be subject to a late charge of $75.00. if a payment is not received by the last day of the month it is due, the buyer and transaction shall be reported to the appropriate credit agencies.
in the event of delinquency, the buyer may divide any payment not received into not more than three equal installments to be included on the next consecutive monthly payments. notification of the buyer’s intent to do so must be made by written letter or phone call to the phone number and address listed below within one business week of delinquency.
kyle failed to make his payment for this month. he decided to split the missing payment into three installments to be paid over the next three months as described in the contract. without calling the bank, kyle sent a check for $1,600 for each of his next three monthly payments.
which action invalidates the contract kyle signed?
a. kyle missed his monthly payment.
b. kyle split the missing payment into three equal parts.
c. kyle did not notify his bank with his intention to split up the missing payment.
d. kyle did not add one - third of the missing payment to the next three monthly payments.

Question

Accepted Answer

# Brief Explanations:
To determine which action invalidates the contract, we analyze the contract terms: it states that if a payment is not received (delinquent), and the buyer wants to split the missed payment into three equal installments for the next three months, they must notify the bank (via written letter or phone call) within one business week of delinquency. Kyle split the payment without notifying the bank (he sent a check without calling first, as required for notification of intent to split). Option a is just missing a payment (delinquency alone doesn't invalidate if he follows split rules later, but he didn't follow the notification rule for splitting). Option b: he split but didn't notify, which violates the contract's notification requirement. Option c: he did not notify, which is the violation. Wait, no—let's recheck. The contract says "Notification of the Buyer’s intent to do so [split into three equal installments] must be made by written letter or phone call to the phone number and address listed below within one business week of delinquency." Kyle failed to call (he sent a check without notifying), so his action of splitting without notification (option c: "Kyle did not notify his bank with his intention to split up the missing payment")—wait, no, the options: option c is "Kyle did not notify his bank with his intention to split up the missing payment", option b is "Kyle split the missing payment into three equal parts". Wait, the contract allows splitting into three equal installments *only if* notification is made. So splitting without notification (i.e., doing the split without the required notification) invalidates the contract. Wait, the question is which action invalidates. Let's parse each option:

a. Kyle missed his monthly payment: Missing a payment is delinquency, but the contract allows splitting if notification is done. So missing alone doesn't invalidate (he could still notify and split).

b. Kyle split the missing payment into three equal parts: But did he notify? The contract says notification is required *before* or when splitting? Wait, the text: "In the event of delinquency, the Buyer may divide any payment not received into not more than three equal installments to be included on the next consecutive monthly payments. Notification of the Buyer’s intent to do so must be made by written letter or phone call... within one business week of delinquency." So the process is: 1. Delinquency (miss payment). 2. If you want to split, you must notify (by letter/phone) within one week of delinquency. 3. Then split (add 1/3 to next three payments). Kyle missed payment (delinquency), then split (sent check for $1600 over next three months—assuming the missing payment was, say, $4800? Wait, no, the check is $1600 each for next three months, so total $4800, which is the missing payment split into three. But he did not notify (he sent the check without calling first). So the key is: the contract requires notification *before* or at the time of splitting? The wording is "Notification of the Buyer’s intent to do so [split] must be made... within one business week of delinquency." So delinquency happens (missed payment), then within one week, he must notify of his intent to split. He split (sent the check) without notifying, so his action of splitting *without* notifying (i.e., the combination of splitting and not notifying) but the options: option c is "Kyle did not notify his bank...", option b is "Kyle split...". Wait, the question is which action invalidates. The contract says you can split *only if* you notify. So splitting without notification is a violation. But the options: let's check each:

a. Missing payment: that's the trigger for delinquency, not an invalidation (you can still follow the split process).

b. Splitting into three parts: but the contract allows splitting *if* notification is done. So splitting without notification is invalid. But the option is "Kyle split the missing payment into three equal parts"—but did he notify? No, he didn't. So the action of splitting (option b) combined with not notifying (option c) but the options are separate. Wait, the options are:

a. Missed payment (delinquency)

b. Split into three parts

c. Did not notify bank of intent to split

d. Did not add 1/3 to next three payments (he did add $1600, which is 1/3 of missing? Wait, the check is $1600 each for next three months, so he did add 1/3. So d is wrong.

So the contract requires notification *before* splitting (or when splitting). So if he splits without notifying, that's a violation. So the action that invalidates is splitting without notification—but the options: option c is "did not notify", option b is "split". But the contract says "may divide... to be included... Notification... must be made...". So the division (splitting) is allowed only if notification is made. So splitting without notification (i.e., doing the split when notification was not done) is the invalid action. But the options: option c is "did not notify"—but is "not notifying" an action? Or is splitting without notifying the action. Wait, the question is "which action invalidates". Let's re-express:

- a: missing payment (delinquency) – allowed to split if notify.

- b: splitting into three parts – but the contract says you can split *only* if you notify. So splitting without notification is invalid. But the option is "Kyle split the missing payment into three equal parts" – but did he have the right to split? Only if he notified. So splitting without notification is a violation. But the option c is "Kyle did not notify his bank...", which is the failure to do the required notification. So which is the invalid action? The contract's condition is: splitting is permitted *only* with prior notification. So the act of splitting (option b) without the required notification (option c) is the violation. But the options are separate. Wait, the options are actions:

a. Missed payment (action: missing)

b. Split into three parts (action: splitting)

c. Did not notify (action: not notifying)

d. Did not add 1/3 (action: not adding)

The contract says: "may divide... to be included... Notification... must be made...". So the process is: Delinquency (a) → then, if you want to split (b), you must notify (c) within one week. So if you do b (split) without doing c (notify), that's a violation. So the action that invalidates is b (splitting) because you're not allowed to split without notifying. Wait, no—splitting is allowed *only* if you notify. So splitting without notification is an invalid action. But the option c is "did not notify"—but "not notifying" is a failure to act, while "splitting" is an action. The question is which action (doing something) invalidates. So splitting (b) without notification is invalid, but the option c is a failure to act. Wait, the contract says the notification *must* be made. So the buyer has a duty to notify if they want to split. So failing to notify (c) when you split (b) is the violation. But the options: let's check the text again.

Kyle's actions: missed payment (a), then split (b) by sending checks for $1600 each (so he did split into three parts), and he did not notify (c: did not call/letter to notify intent to split). The contract requires that notification *must* be made. So the action that invalidates is the failure to notify (c) when he intended to split (since he split, he had the intent to split, so he should have notified). So the action of not notifying (c) when he split (b) is the invalidation. But the options: option c is "Kyle did not notify his bank with his intention to split up the missing payment"—this is the action (or inaction) that violates the contract, because the contract requires notification of intent to split. So even though he split (b), the key violation is not notifying (c), because splitting is allowed only with notification. So the answer is c? Wait, no—let's check the options again.

Wait, the question is "Which action invalidates the contract Kyle signed?"

Let's analyze each option:

a. Kyle missed his monthly payment: Missing a payment is the start of delinquency, but the contract provides a process (notify and split) to handle delinquency. So missing alone doesn't invalidate the contract (he can still follow the split process).

b. Kyle split the missing payment into three equal parts: The contract allows splitting into three equal parts *if* he notifies the bank of his intent to do so. So splitting alone isn't invalid—only splitting without notification is invalid. But the option is just "split into three parts"—does it imply he didn't notify? The scenario says "Without calling the bank, Kyle sent a check for $1,600 for each of his next three monthly payments." So he split (sent the checks) without notifying (calling or writing). So the action of splitting (b) combined with not notifying (c) is the violation. But the options are separate. Wait, the options are:

a. Missed payment (action: miss)

b. Split into three parts (action: split)

c. Did not notify (action: not notify)

d. Did not add 1/3 (he did add, so d is wrong)

The contract's condition is: splitting is permitted only with prior notification. So the act of splitting (b) when notification (c) was not done is a violation. But the option c is "did not notify"—is "not notifying" an action that invalidates? The contract says notification *must* be made. So failing to notify (c) when you intend to split (which he did, by sending the checks) is a breach. So the action that invalidates is c: Kyle did not notify his bank with his intention to split up the missing payment. Because the contract requires that notification, and he failed to do so, making his split (and the notification failure) a breach. Wait, but the option b is "Kyle split the missing payment into three equal parts"—but splitting is allowed if notification is done. So splitting without notification is the breach, but the options: if he split (b) without notifying (c), then both b and c are part of the breach, but the question is which *action* (the thing he did or didn't do) invalidates. The contract says "Notification... must be made...", so the failure to notify (c) is the breach, because splitting is allowed only with notification. So the action that invalidates is c: not notifying, because that's the required step he missed, making his split (b) invalid.

# Answer:
c. Kyle did not notify his bank with his intention to split up the missing payment

Sovi.AI - AI Math Tutor

QUESTION IMAGE

Question

Explanation:

Answer: