Retention of Title

Violet’s case is similar to the case Re Megevand; Ex parte Delhasse (1878) 7 Ch D 511 in which the court considered the creditor a partner of the business concerned given that the creditor (Delhasse) had the right to control the property, had all the rights a dormant business partner would be expected to have, and rights to share profits and liability to share in losses.

Portia owes Bon $500 on their roof repair contract, but refuses to pay. To collect, Bon files a me­chanic’s lien. Under a mechanic’s lien, security for the debt is repre­sented by

The Lighthouse Company is dedicated to offer services to marine or shipping companies. Their services are based on the tracking and location of the boats of their clients. In order to offer the service, Lighthouse must install an equipment of tracking boats which will have a cost of sale of $10.000,00 dollars, no reimbursable and a tracking system with a monthly cost of sale of $300,00 dollars. This way their clients will continuously receive the data on the location and routes of their boats. The clients must accept this service by means of two contracts. One that stipulates the purchase of the tracking equipment and other that stipulates the monthly fee by the tracking service, usually with

15–1. Liquidated Damages. Carnack contracts to sell his house and lot to Willard for $100,000. The terms of the contract call for Willard to make a deposit of 10 percent of the purchase price as a down payment. The terms further stipulate that if the buyer breaches the contract, Carnack will retain the deposit as liquidated damages. Willard makes the deposit, but because her expected financing of the $90,000 balance falls through, she breaches the contract. Two weeks later, Carnack sells the house and lot to Balkova for $105,000. Willard demands her $10,000 back, but Carnack refuses, claiming that Willard’s breach and the contract terms entitle him to keep the deposit. Discuss who is correct. (See Damages.)

Bernie lives in Richmond, VA and he decides on February 1 to advertise the sale of his 2006 Ford Fusion for $13,500 in the local newspaper. After several weeks and no offers he gets a call from Vivian on March 1st offering to purchase the car for $12,000. Bernie realizes he may not get any other offers and sets up to meet with Vivian on March 5th to complete the sale transaction.

a. Joe has signed a contract to sell gadgets to the city. The contract provides that sales of gadgets are dependent upon a test sample of gadgets operating successfully. In December, Joe delivers $12,000 worth of gadgets to the city that will be tested in March. Joe purchased the gadgets especially for this contract and paid $8,500

• Contracts were exchanged on 2 May 2005 for the purchase of property for $2,130,000 between the plaintiffs and the first defendant.

By contrast, in Lori Ann Nelson v Lynette Marie Bellamy, certain items were remaining on the land at completion date, the purchaser rescinded the contract by reason of the fact that there was a significant amount of rubbish and builder 's debris on the property. The court held that the items were present on the property at completion were not substantial, because such items did not impinge at all on the living areas, including the courtyard, and did not substantially prevent use of the undercroft or the side alleys which did not constitute a substantial part of the property.

Section 3.2 Authority. The Seller has full corporate power, authority and legal right to execute and deliver, and to perform its obligations under this Agreement and to consummate the transactions contemplated hereunder, and has taken all necessary action to authorize the purchase hereunder on the terms and conditions of this Agreement and to authorize the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement. This Agreement has been duly executed by the Seller and constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of the Seller enforceable against Seller in accordance with its terms, except as such enforceability may be limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, or other similar laws from time to time in effect, which affect the enforcement of creditors' rights in general and by general principles of equity regardless of whether such enforceability is considered in

In this case, there are two issues that emerge; the first entails as to whether Johnson, who is a farmer should be treated as a merchant according to the definition of the Universal Commercial Code. The other issue that emerges in the case concerns as to whether the oral contract made between the two parties of selling 600 bushels at the price of $ 4.02 should constitute a binding contract.

Bernie a resident of Richmond, Virginia decides to sale his 2006 Ford Fusion for $13,000.00 and places an ad in his local newspaper on February 1st. After several weeks without any inquiries, Vivian contacts Bernie on March 1st stating she will pay him $12,000.00 for the car. Bernie arranges to meet with Vivian on March 5th to complete the deal. Vivian comes to Bernie’s house on March 10th and says she will give Bernie $12,500.00 for the car; but she needs three additional weeks to come up with the money. Bernie agrees but only if Vivian puts down a deposit. Vivian agrees and Bernie drafts an agreement stated the sale will must take place no later than March 31st. Vivian reads and signs the agreement and

with the third party, LOI believes that there is a 90% probability that the third

3.1. The Seller and the Buyer both acknowledge the sufficiency of this consideration. In addition to the purchase price specified in this Agreement, the amount of any present or future sales, use, excise or similar tax applicable to the sale of the Goods will be paid by the Buyer, or alternatively, the Buyer will provide the Seller with tax exemption certificate acceptable to the applicable taxing authorities.

The key facts in this case are fairly straightforward. The owner, Mr. Edwards, made the decision to repurchase company stock from an unhappy group of shareholders. To do so he liquidated his strong cash position and took out a short-term loan. The loan is now coming due and because of lower than expected sales the past few months due to a parts delivery issue Jackson does not have the money to repay the short-term loan. In addition to the shortfall of incoming cash from sales Jackson had received a large $4.2 million dollar order. To ensure that they could satisfy this order Jackson over bought raw materials by $2.44 million. Not only did the delivery interruption cause Jackson to delay sales and therefore income but the excess purchase of raw materials has cash tied up in inventory and not liquid to pay off the $5 million loan.

SAB 104 lays down the following conditions that should all be fulfilled to enable revenue recognition in cases on non-delivery of goods: (1) The risks of ownership need to have been transferred to the purchasers, (2) The customers have made commitments, preferably written, to procure the goods, (3) The purchasers call for the ‘bill and hold’ transactions, (4) The buyers should be