Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
17th Edition
ISBN: 9781337094757
Author: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 14, Problem 3Q
Summary Introduction
To discuss: Whether person J permitted to recover the proprietorship of the 2016 car.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Abigail is in the business of selling fine antiques. Abigail purchased an antique desk for $5,000 from Jackson, and gave a promissory note for payment. Concerned that Jackson might not accept the note, Abigail had her friend Catalina sign the promissory note as well. Jackson accepted the note as payment. Two weeks later, Jackson sought payment on the note. Abigail told Jackson that she is not responsible for the promissory note because Catalina signed the note too, and Jackson had to seek payment from Catalina first.
Abigail also spotted a beautiful set of vintage chairs owned by Max that would be perfect for her store. Abigail wrote a $10,000 check, also signed by her business associate Orville as an accommodation party, to Max to pay for the chairs. Max presented the check to Westville Savings, the bank where Abigail has a checking account, for payment. Westville Savings dishonored the check claiming Abigail had insufficient funds. Who is liable for these negotiable…
Kevin Miller bought a house in Atlanta in 2009 and took out a mortgage. He lived in the house until 2012, when he accepted a job in Chicago; from then on, he rented the house. He received a letter demanding payment from a law firm on behalf of the mortgage company in 2014. By this time, Miller was renting the property to strangers and thus was making a business use of the property. Miller claimed that the law firm had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The law firm replied that the letter is outside the scope of the Act because it was trying to collect a business debt rather than a consumer debt. a. What are the arguments that the debt is a consumer debt? b. What are the arguments that the debt is a business debt? c. Which arguments would prevail? Explain.
Kate owned a small grocery store. One day John went to the store and purchased a can of chip dip that was, unknown to Kate or John, adulterated. John became seriously ill after eating the dip and sued Kate for damages on the grounds that she breached an implied warranty of merchantability. Is Kate liable? Why?
Chapter 14 Solutions
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Ch. 14 - Prob. 1COCh. 14 - Prob. 2COCh. 14 - Prob. 3COCh. 14 - Prob. 4COCh. 14 - Prob. 5COCh. 14 - Prob. 1QCh. 14 - Prob. 2QCh. 14 - Prob. 3QCh. 14 - Prob. 4QCh. 14 - Prob. 5Q
Ch. 14 - Prob. 6QCh. 14 - Prob. 7QCh. 14 - Prob. 8QCh. 14 - Prob. 9QCh. 14 - Prob. 10CPCh. 14 - Prob. 11CPCh. 14 - Prob. 12CPCh. 14 - Prob. 13CPCh. 14 - Prob. 14CPCh. 14 - Prob. 15CPCh. 14 - Prob. 16CPCh. 14 - Prob. 17CPCh. 14 - Prob. 18CPCh. 14 - Prob. 19CPCh. 14 - Prob. 20CPCh. 14 - Prob. 21CPCh. 14 - Prob. 22CPCh. 14 - Prob. 1TSCh. 14 - Prob. 2TSCh. 14 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Robert sold used cars, but he had little or no knowledge with respect to the technical aspects of any of the vehicles that he sold. Ray was seeking to buy a Honda Civic and Robert gave his opinion as to the speed of the car and its durability. Ray subsequently finalized the purchase and took control of the car. Two weeks after the purchase, the Honda Civic broke down and required extensive mechanical repairs. Ray is angry and is of the view that Robert misrepresented the condition of the car when he sold it. Ray is of the opinion that as a Used Car Salesmen, Robert should have known that the car was indeed in poor mechanical condition. Please advise Ray using the IRAC methodarrow_forwardRobert sold used cars, but he had little or no knowledge with respect to the technical aspects of any of the vehicles that he sold. Ray was seeking to buy a Honda Civic and Robert gave his opinion as to the speed of the car and its durability. Ray subsequently finalized the purchase and took control of the car. Two weeks after the purchase, the Honda Civic broke down and required extensive mechanical repairs. Ray is angry and is of the view that Robert misrepresented the condition of the car when he sold it. Ray is of the opinion that as a Used Car Salesmen, Robert should have known that the car was indeed in poor mechanical condition. Ray knows that you are studying Business, and sought your advice on the matter. Please advise Ray.arrow_forwardA received from X a pendant with diamonds valued at P400,500 to be sold on commission basis or to be returned on demand. In the evening of February 1, 2020, while walking home to her residence, two men snatched her purse containing the pendant and ran away. Subsequently, the snatchers were apprehended and charged. During the pendency of the criminal case, X brought an action against A for recovery of the pendant or of its value and damages. The latter interposed the defense of fortuitous event, but the former contends: (a) that the defense of fortuitous event is untenable because there was negligence on the part of the defendant; and (b) that if the defense is tenable, nevertheless, there must be a prior conviction for robbery before it can be availed of. Decide the case.arrow_forward
- 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_forwardAaron bought a television set for personal use from Penny. Aaron properly signed a security agreement and paid Penny $125 down, as their agreement required. Penny did not file, and subsequently Aaron sold the television for $800 to Clark, his neighbor, for use in Clark’s hotel lobby. a. When Aaron fails to make the January and February payments, may Penny repossess the television from Clark? b. What if, instead of Aaron’s selling the television set to Clark, a judgment creditor levied (sought possession) on the television? Who would prevail? c. What if Clark intended to use the television set in his home? Who would prevail?arrow_forwardJohn Torniero was employed by Micheals Jewelers, Inc. (Micheals). During the course of his employment, Torniero stole pieces of jewelry, including several diamond rings, a sapphire ring, a gold pendant, and several loose diamonds. Over a period of several months, Torniero sold individual pieces of the stolen jewelry to G&W Watch and Jewelry Corporation (G&W). G&W had no knowledge of how Torniero obtained the jewels. Torniero was arrested when Micheals discovered the thefts. After Torniero admitted that he had sold the stolen jewelry to G&W, Micheals attempted to recover it from G&W. G&W claimed title to the jewelry as a good faith purchaser for value. Micheals challenged G&W’s claim to title in court. Who wins? Explain your reasoning.arrow_forward
- Columbia 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_forwardA got into a vehicular accident with B due to the fault of the latter. The case could very well fall under the crime of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Physical Injuries in addition to suit for collection of money, but A opted not to file a criminal case against B since such filing of criminal case against a churchmate would mean his dismissal from their church. Instead, A chose to file a case for collection of sum of money only based on their agreement that B will pay A for all the expenses incurred by reason of the accident except for the repair of the car since B will directly pay the same to the A’s insurance company. However, B refused to pay A for his travel expenses and meal allowances when he travels to the repair shop during his routine check-ups on the progress of the repair even after A insisted on B’s agreement to pay all the damages. Whose contention is correct? Is it B’s refusal to pay A’s expenses during routine check-ups or is it A’s insistence on B’s liability to pay…arrow_forwardX bound himself it to deliver to Y a 21 inch 2010 model TV sets, and the 13 cubic feet gray samsung refrigerator, with motor no. SAM-123 which Y saw in X's store, and to repair Y's piano, X did none of these things May the court compel X to deliver the Tv set and the refrigerator and repair the piano? Why? If not, what relief may the court grant Y? Why?arrow_forward
- Pattie purchases a couch from Good Stuff, Inc., to use in her home. She pays for the couch, and Good Stuff agrees to deliver it. Unfortunately, on the way to her house, the delivery truck overheats and burns, destroying the truck and the couch inside. Pattie asks for a refund or another couch. Good Stuff’s owner refuses. If Pattie decides to sue Good Stuff, which party is likely to prevail? Explain. (In your answer, be sure to identify and discuss which law(s) might apply and how that could affect the outcome.)arrow_forwardBob offered to sell Teresa his used motorcycle. She took a look at it and asked Bob how it ran, to which Bob replied that it was in good shape. Teresa thought the motorcycle was two years old when she purchased it. A few days later, she discovered that it was actually five years old. She asks Bob to take back the motorcycle. He tells her no way, that he thought she knew the age of that model, and that she should have asked him if she had any uncertainty. If Teresa sues, who is likely to win and why?arrow_forwardSam Simpleton, a resident of Kansas, and Nellie Naive, a resident of Missouri, each bought $85,000 in stock at local offices in their home States from Evil Stockbrokers, Inc. (“Evil”), a business incorporated in Delaware, with its principal place of business in Kansas. Both Simpleton and Naive believe that they were cheated by Evil Stockbrokers and would like to sue Evil for fraud. Assuming that no Federal question is at issue, assess the accuracy of the following statements: a. Simpleton can sue Evil in a Kansas State trial court. b. Simpleton can sue Evil in a Federal district court in Kansas. c. Naive can sue Evil in a Missouri State trial court. d. Naive can sue Evil in a Federal district court in Missouri.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