Lms Integrated Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card For Mann/roberts’ Smith And Roberson’s Business Law, 17th
17th Edition
ISBN: 9781337094566
Author: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 11, Problem 8Q
Summary Introduction
To discuss: Whether person J can invalid the sale.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
swiper steals Dora's gold watch and sells it to Marni for $100. Marni does not know that Swiper stole the watch from Dora.In a lawsuit by Dora against Swiper and Marni,
a.
has no recourse against Swiper or Marni
b.
Dora may not obtain the watch back from Marni
c.
has the legal right to a return of the watch from Marni
d.
may demand that Swiper buy her a new watch that looks like the one he stole from her.
Parker, the owner of certain unimproved real estate in Chicago, employed Adams, a real estate agent, to sell the property for a price of $250,000 or more and agreed to pay Adams a commission of 6 percent for making a sale. Adams negotiated with Turner, who was interested in the property and willing to pay as much as $280,000 for it. Adams made an agreement with Turner that if Adams could obtain Parker’s signature to a contract to sell the property to Turner for $250,000, Turner would pay Adams a bonus of $10,000. Adams prepared and Parker and Turner signed a contract for the sale of the property to Turner for $250,000. Turner refuses to pay Adams the $10,000 as promised. Parker refuses to pay Adams the 6 percent commission. In an action by Adams against Parker and Turner, what judgment?
Wilson engages Ruth to sell Wilson’s antique walnut chest to Harold for $2,500. The next day, Ruth learns that Sandy is willing to pay $3,000 for Wilson’s chest. Ruth nevertheless sells the chest to Harold. Wilson then discovers these facts. What are Wilson’s rights, if any, against Ruth?
Chapter 11 Solutions
Lms Integrated Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card For Mann/roberts’ Smith And Roberson’s Business Law, 17th
Ch. 11 - Prob. 1COCh. 11 - Prob. 2COCh. 11 - Prob. 3COCh. 11 - Prob. 4COCh. 11 - Prob. 5COCh. 11 - Prob. 1QCh. 11 - Prob. 2QCh. 11 - Prob. 3QCh. 11 - Prob. 4QCh. 11 - Prob. 5Q
Ch. 11 - Prob. 6QCh. 11 - Prob. 7QCh. 11 - Prob. 8QCh. 11 - Prob. 9QCh. 11 - Prob. 10CPCh. 11 - Prob. 11CPCh. 11 - Prob. 12CPCh. 11 - Prob. 13CPCh. 11 - Prob. 14CPCh. 11 - Prob. 15CPCh. 11 - Prob. 16CPCh. 11 - Prob. 17CPCh. 11 - Prob. 18CPCh. 11 - Prob. 19CPCh. 11 - Prob. 20CPCh. 11 - Prob. 21CPCh. 11 - Prob. 22CPCh. 11 - Prob. 23CPCh. 11 - Prob. 1TSCh. 11 - Prob. 2TSCh. 11 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- On March 17, Peckham bought a new car from Larsen Chevrolet for $16,400. During the first one and one-half months after the purchase, Peckham discovered that the car’s hood was dented, its gas tank contained no baffles, its emergency brake was inoperable, the car did not have a jack or a spare tire, and neither the clock nor the speedometer worked. Larsen claimed that Peckham knew of the defects at the time of the purchase. Peckham, on the other hand, claimed that he did not know the extent of the defects and that despite his repeated efforts the defects were not repaired until June 11. Then, on July 15, the car’s dashboard caught fire, leaving the car’s interior damaged and the car itself inoperable. Peckham then returned to Larsen Chevrolet and told Larsen that he had to repair the car at his own expense or that he, Peckham, would either rescind the contract or demand a new automobile. Peckham also claimed that at the end of their conversation he notified Larsen Chevrolet that he was…arrow_forwardWilliam E. Story agreed to pay his nephew, William E. Story II, a large sum of money (for purposes of this hypothetical, $500,000 in today's dollars) "if he would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing, and playing cards or billiards for money until he should come to be 21 years of age." William II had been using tobacco and occasionally drank liquor but refrained from using these stimulants over several years until he was 21 and also lived up to the other requirements of his uncle's offer. Just after William II's 21st birthday, Story acknowledged that William II had fulfilled his part of the bargain and advised that the money would be invested for him with interest. Story died, and his executor, Sidway, refused to pay William II because he believed the contract between Story and William II was without consideration. Sidway asserted that Story received no benefit from William II's performance and William II suffered no detriment (in fact, by his refraining from the use…arrow_forwardThe H owned and operated a successful small bakery and grocery store. They spoke with L, an agent of Red Owl Stores, who told them that for $18,000, Red Owl would build a store and fully stock it for them. The H sold their bakery and grocery store and purchased a lot on which Red Owl was to build the store. L then told H that the price had gone up to $26,000. The H borrowed the extra money from relatives, but then L informed them that the cost would be $34,000. Negotiations broke off and the H sued. Can H win the case? Explain.arrow_forward
- Miguel, a 16-year old mechanic’s apprentice, borrowed $3,000 from his next door neighbour, Jono, by telling him that he was 20 years old and had a good, stable income. The loan was payable in three equal fortnightly payments. After the first payment, Miguel stopped paying Jono. Jono wanted to bring a legal action against Miguel but when he discovered his real age, he decided instead to initiate an action in tort for deceit against the latter. Will Jono likely be successful in his action in tort for deceit against Miguel? Explain please.arrow_forwardPeter Andrus owned an apartment building that he had insured under a fire insurance policy sold by J.C. Durick Insurance (Durick). Two months prior to the expiration of the policy, Durick notified Andrus that the building should be insured for $48,000 (or 80 percent of the building’s value), as required by the insurance company. Andrus replied that (1) he wanted insurance to match the amount of the outstanding mortgage on the building (i.e., $24,000) and (2) if Durick could not sell this insurance, he would go elsewhere. Durick sent a new insurance policy in the face amount of $48,000 with the notation that the policy was automatically accepted unless Andrus notified him to the contrary. Andrus did not reply. However, he did not pay the premiums on the policy. Durick sued Andrus to recover these premiums. Discuss who wins? Provide justification for your argument/position.arrow_forwardMarge sold her car to Rupert, her very good friend on credit for $100,000. He paid down $30,000, but after a few months, and having not seeing Rupert, Marge decided to take back the car. Lucky for her, she did not give Rupert the papers for the car. She saw Henry with the car, who told her that Rupert sold it to him and promised to give him the papers soon; i. Can Rupert keep the car? why or why not. ii. Can Marge get back the car? why or why not. iii. Would the situation be different if Marge had given Rupert the papers for the car? iv. What type of contract did Rupert and Henry enter into?arrow_forward
- Stein, a mechanic, and Beal, a life insurance agent, entered into a written contract for the sale of Stein’s tractor to Beal for $6,800 cash. It was agreed that Stein would tune the motor on the tractor. Stein fulfilled this obligation and on the night of July 1 telephoned Beal that the tractor was ready to be picked up upon Beal’s making payment. Beal responded, “I’ll be there in the morning with the money.” On the next morning, however, Beal was approached by an insurance prospect and decided to get the tractor at a later date. On the night of .July 2, the tractor was destroyed by fire of unknown origin. Neither Stein nor Beal had any fire insurance. Who must bear the loss? Why?arrow_forwardMichael, a minor, operates a one-man automobile repair shop. Anderson, having heard of Michael’s good work on other cars, takes her car to Michael’s shop for a thorough engine overhaul. Michael, while overhauling Anderson’s engine, carelessly fits an unsuitable piston ring on one of the pistons, with the result that Anderson’s engine is seriously damaged. Michael offers to return the sum that Anderson paid him for his work, but refusesto pay for the damage. Can Anderson recover from Michael in tort for the damage to her engine? Why or why not?arrow_forwardColumbia University brought suit against Jacobsen on two notes signed by him and his parents. The notes represented the balance of tuition he owed the University. Jacobsen counterclaimed for money damages due to Columbia’s deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation. Jacobsen argues that Columbia fraudulently misrepresented that it would teach wisdom, truth, character, enlightenment, and similar virtues and qualities. He specifically cites as support the Columbia motto: “in lumine tuo videbimus lumen” (“In your light we shall see light”); the inscription over the college chapel: “Wisdom dwelleth in the heart of him that hath understanding”; and various excerpts from its brochures, catalogues, and a convocation address made by the University’s president. Jacobsen, a senior who was not graduated because of poor scholastic standing, claims that the University’s failure to meet its promises made through these quotations constituted fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit. Decision?arrow_forward
- Anne Robertson obtained telescopes from the See-Well Optics Company at dealer prices on the pretense of being a dealer in optical equipment. See-Well later determined that Robertson was not, had never been, and did not plan to be a dealer in optics. By the time these facts emerged, Robertson had succeeded in selling the telescopes to several individuals located throughout the country. These buyers had responded to advertisements placed by Robertson, who again had represented herself as a dealer in optical equipment. The buyers had purchased the telescopes in good faith at prices consistent with comparable equipment. See-Well located these buyers and demanded that the telescopes be returned as property obtained through fraud. Do the buyers of these telescopes have to return their purchases?arrow_forwardMiguel, a 16-year old mechanic’s apprentice, borrowed $3,000 from his next-door neighbor, Jono, by telling him that he was 20 years old and had a good, stable income. The loan was payable in three equal fortnightly payments. After the first payment, Miguel stopped paying Jono. Jono wanted to bring legal action against Miguel but when he discovered his real age, he decided instead to initiate an action in tort for deceit against the latter. Will Jono likely be successful in his action in tort for deceit against Miguel? Explain your answer.arrow_forwardOn March 1, Joseph sold to Sandra fifty acres of land in Oregon, which Joseph at the time represented to be fine black loam, high, dry, and free of stumps. Sandra paid Joseph the agreed price of $140,000 and took from him a deed to the land. Subsequently discovering that the land was low, swampy, and not entirely free of stumps, Sandra nevertheless undertook to convert the greater part of the land into cranberry bogs. After one year of cranberry culture, Sandra became entirely dissatisfied, tendered the land back to Joseph, and demanded from Joseph the return of the $140,000. Upon Joseph’s refusal to repay the money, Sandra brings an action against him to recover the $140,000. What judgment?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...ManagementISBN:9781305947412Author:Cliff RagsdalePublisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...ManagementISBN:9780135191798Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. LaudonPublisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134237473Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De CenzoPublisher:PEARSON
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134527604
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...
Management
ISBN:9781305947412
Author:Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...
Management
ISBN:9780135191798
Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...
Management
ISBN:9780134728391
Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134237473
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:PEARSON