S sold his lot to B. The lot is the subject of a case filed by X against S. S did not disclose this fact to B. Is S liable to B for fraud? A. Yes, because S has the obligation to reveal the fact to B even if the latter did not ask. B. Yes, because the sale involves transfer of real rights to the property. C. No, because S did not say and do anything to convince B to buy the lot. D. No, because B is bound by the rule of "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware".

S sold his lot to B. The lot is the subject of a case filed by X against S. S did not disclose this fact to B. Is S liable to B for fraud? A. Yes, because S has the obligation to reveal the fact to B even if the latter did not ask. B. Yes, because the sale involves transfer of real rights to the property. C. No, because S did not say and do anything to convince B to buy the lot. D. No, because B is bound by the rule of "caveat emptor" or "buyer beware".

Business Its Legal Ethical & Global Environment

10th Edition

ISBN:9781305224414

Author:JENNINGS

Publisher:JENNINGS

Chapter4: Managing Disputes: Alternative Dispute Resolution And Litigation Strategies

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 2DQ

See similar textbooks

Similar questions

D is indebted to C for P10,000. For the purpose of defrauding C, D sold his only parcel of land to X valued P10,000. X has no knowledge of the intention of D. a. The contract D and X is binding. b. The contract is voidable because S is in bad faith. c. The right of C is to rescind the contract because the transaction is fraudulent. d. The contract between D and X is rescissible.
Richard is the trustee of the Williams family Trust. Last year he directed Steve a broker, to purchase an unauthorized investment for the Trust. Both Richard and Steve realized that the investment was unauthorized, but both thought the trust investment clause was too restrictive. Furthermore, David a solicitor, advised Richard that so long he was taking risk in the best interest of the beneficiaries, he would be protected by the trustee exemption clause in the trust instrument. He also advised Steve that it would be very unlikely for the court not to exonerate him as well even though not being a trustee, he did not have a specific protection of the clause. Richard and Steve proceed with the investment in good faith, Steve taking a $10,000 brokerage fee. The investment which was initially worth US$100,000 is now worth US$ 50,000 after just 3 weeks from the date of the unauthorized change. Advise the beneficiaries.
Amy is a creditor of Bia. In order to escape the liability to Amy, Bia sells all his property to Cathy. May Amy ask for rescission of the contract of sale between Bia and Cathy? * Yes even if the right of levy and execution and accion subrogatoria are still available. Yes because creditors are protected in cases of contracts intended to defraud them. No because Amy is not a party to the contract. No because Amy has no right of rescission.
nayla received a bill of exchange for value from Ahmed who had obtained the intrunment fraudulently. Nayla fearing the bill might lapse, presented it for payment where upon, it was dishonoured. state with reasons whether nayla can claim to be a holder in due course.
Rochelle fraudulently induces Sybil to sign a note. Rochelle sells the note to Terry, who does not know of the fraud and takes the note for value and in good faith, and thus becomes an HDC. Terry sells the note to Ulrich, who sells the note back to Rochelle. Does Rochelle acquire Terry’s HDC rights in the note?
Due to his debt to Chur, Schwyz wrote a promissory note which is payable to the order of Chur. Chur's sister, Sion, misrepresenting herself as agent of Chur, obtained the note from Schwyz. Sion then negotiated the note to Lausanne after forging the signature of Chur. May Lausanne enforce the note against Schwyz? a. Yes, since Schwyz is the principal debtor. b. No, since it is Chur who can enforce it, the note being payable to the order of Chur. c. No, since the signature of Chur was forged. d. Yes, since Schwyz, as maker, is primarily liable on the note.
Lynn and Jack jointly own shares of stock of a corporation, have a joint bank account, and have purchased and own as tenants in common a piece of real estate. They share equally the dividends paid on the stock, the interest on the bank account, and the rent from the real estate. Without Lynn’s knowledge, Jack makes a trip to inspect the real estate and on his way runs over Samuel. Samuel sues Lynn and Jack for his personal injuries, joining Lynn as defendant on the theory that Lynn was Jack’s partner. Is Lynn a partner of Jack?
LO.2 Leigh sued an overzealous bill collector and received the following settlement: a. What effect does the settlement have on Leighs gross income? b. Assume that Leigh also collected 25,000 of damages for slander to her personal reputation caused by the bill collector misrepresenting the facts to Leighs employer and other creditors. Is this 25,000 included in Leighs gross income? Explain.
Ray loses his job as a result of a corporate downsizing. Consequently, he falls behind on the mortgage payments on his personal residence. His friend Ted would like to make the delinquent mortgage payments for him. a. Could the payments be structured so that Ray can deduct the mortgage interest? b. Could the payment arrangement deny both Ray and Ted a mortgage interest deduction? c. Could the payments be structured so that Ted can deduct the mortgage interest?
Thompson’s house was destroyed by fire and claims were filed with the insurance company. The insurance company (insurer) hired Cannon to investigate the fire as it was suspicious about the cause. Subsequently, the insurer denied the claims based on Cannon’s report. Thompson sued the insurer and Cannon. Thompson claimed to be a third party beneficiary of the Cannon-insurer contract. Is Thompson correct? If not, what type of beneficiary is he and why?