Company F sought to purchase the riverfront property of person M for $300,000 with a check of $1,000 as a deposit for the transaction to Banker C, agent of person M. As a counter offer holding open for 30 days, person M agreed to sell the riverfront property for $550,000. Another company H negotiated to buy the property from person M and executed the contract. Banker C had informed company H of the transaction. Immediately, Company F prepared a contract of acceptance of counter offer and presented it to the agent which was duly returned. Company F filed action for injunction. To discuss: If the contract exist between Company F and person M.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 10, Problem 20CP

Summary Introduction

Case summary:

Company F sought to purchase the riverfront property of person M for $300,000 with a check of $1,000 as a deposit for the transaction to Banker C, agent of person M. As a counter offer holding open for 30 days, person M agreed to sell the riverfront property for $550,000. Another company H negotiated to buy the property from person M and executed the contract. Banker C had informed company H of the transaction. Immediately, Company F prepared a contract of acceptance of counter offer and presented it to the agent which was duly returned. Company F filed action for injunction.

To discuss: If the contract exist between Company F and person M.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Executive Financial Services, Inc. (EFS), purchased three tractors from Tri-County Farm Company (Tri-County), a John Deere dealership owned by Gene Mohr and James Loyd. The tractors cost $48,000, $19,000, and $38,000. EFS did not take possession of the tractors but instead left the tractors on Tri-County’s lot. EFS leased the tractors to Mohr-Loyd Leasing (Mohr-Loyd), a partnership between Mohr and Loyd, with the understanding and representation by Mohr-Loyd that the tractors would be leased out to farmers. Instead of leasing the tractors, Tri-County sold them to three different farmers. EFS sued and obtained judgment against Tri-County, Mohr-Loyd, and Mohr and Loyd personally for breach of contract. Because that judgment remained unsatisfied, EFS sued the three farmers who bought the tractors to recover the tractors from them. a) What does the entrustment rule provide? Explain. b) Did Mohr and Loyd act ethically in this case? c) Who owns the tractors, EFS or the farmers?

National Cash Register Company (NCR), a manufacturer of cash registers, entered into a sales contract for a cash register with Edmund Carroll. On November 18, Firestone and Company made a loan to Carroll, who conveyed certain property to Firestone as collateral under a security agreement. The property outlined in the security agreement included “[a]ll contents of luncheonette including equipment such as ... ‘twenty-five different listed items,’ ... together with all property and articles now, and which may hereafter be, used ... with, [or] added ... to ... any of the foregoing described property.” A similarly detailed description of the property conveyed as collateral appeared in Firestone’s financing statement, but the financing statement made no mention of property to be acquired thereafter, and neither document made a specific reference to a cash register. NCR delivered the cash register to Carroll in Canton between November 19 and November 25 and filed a financing statement with…

A 72,000 square foot multi-tenant retail property with an Equinox gym and a Wendy’s restaurant in Columbus, Ohio was recently sold for $7,200,000. Selling costs, including a brokerage fee, totaled five percent of the purchase price. The mortgage loan balance at the time of sale was $3,760,000. The property was purchased eight years earlier for $4,200,000, and annual depreciation deductions of $120,000 were taken each year for tax purposes. If the combined effective federal and state income tax rates on capital gains and tax depreciation recapture is 30%, what was the after-tax cash flow from the sale of the property? a. $2,288,000 b. $2,252,000 c. $2,540,000 d. $2,000,000