Smith and Roberson's Business Law
16th Edition
ISBN: 9781285428253
Author: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 14, Problem 7Q
Summary Introduction
To discuss: Whether person A can recover from person M.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
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?
Peter 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.
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…
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. 1TSCh. 14 - Prob. 2TSCh. 14 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- 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_forwardswiper 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.arrow_forwardDavid E. Ross, his two brothers, and their families operated and owned the entire stock of five businesses. Ross had three children: Rod, David II, and Betsy. David II and Betsy were not involved in the operation of the companies, but Rod began working for one of the firms, Equitable Life and Casualty Insurance Company, in 2007. Between 2009 and 2013, the elder Ross informed a number of persons of his desire to reward Rod for his work with Equitable Life by giving him stock in addition to the stock he would inherit. He subsequently executed several stock transfers to Rod, representing shares in various family businesses, which were reflected by appropriate entries on the corporate books. Certificates were issued in Rod’s name and placed in an envelope identified with the name Rod Ross, but they were kept with the other family stock certificates in an office safe to which Rod did not have access. In all, one-fourth of the stock holdings of David E. Ross were transferred to Rod in this…arrow_forward
- Alan’s real estate broker suggested that he use a quitclaim deed to sell his super cool Brentwood condo so that the buyer would: Be the grantor under the deed and have full recourse against the seller for any title related claims Acquire only the legal interest in the property that Alan previously held Know that all prior mortgages, liens, and other encumbrances had either been reconveyed or removed from the property’s title Receive assurance that the property was free from any title defectsarrow_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_forwardPeters paid Davis $1000 for carpeting which was installed in Peter's home on March 1, 1974. Peters immediately noticed a defect in the carpets and notified Davis. Davis's employees attempted several times to fix the carpets but were unsuccessful. On May 1, Peter wrote Davis and rejected the carpet demanding a full refund of the purchase price. Davis failed to remove the carpet. What will be the result?arrow_forward
- Norma English made an offer to purchase a house owned by Michael and Laurie Montgomery (Montgomery) for $272,000. In her offer, English also proposed to purchase certain personal property—paving stones and a fireplace screen worth a total of $100—from Montgomery. When Montgomery received English’s offer, Montgomery made many changes to English’s offer, including deleting the paving stones and fireplace screen from the personal property that English wanted. When English received the Montgomery counteroffer, English accepted and initialed all of Montgomery’s changes except that English did not initial the change that deleted the paving stones and fireplace screen from the deal.Subsequently, Montgomery notified English that because English had not completely accepted the terms of Montgomery’s counteroffer, Montgomery was therefore withdrawing from the deal. That same day, Montgomery signed a contract to sell the house to another buyer for $285,000. English sued Montgomery for specific…arrow_forwardwilliam purchased a 10-year renewable and convertible term insurance policy with an effective date of March 1, 2014 and a 2-year sulcide exclusion clause. In the following year. William subsequently exercises his conversion privilege anc obtains a term-to-100 policy with a policy effective date of Feb 1, 2015. Which of the following stätements CORRECTLY describes the suicide and contestability timeframes of William's term-to-100 policy? sulcide exclusion clause expires on March 1. 2016: Contestability period expires March 1, 2016 Sulcide exclusion clause expires on Feb 1. 2017: Contestability period expires March 1. 2016 Suicide exclusion elause expires on March 1, 2016, Contestability perlod expires Feb 1. 2017 Sulcide exclusion clause expires on Feb 1. 2017: Contestability perod expires Feb 1, 2017 16arrow_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_forward
- Sharon Love entered into a written lease agreement with Monarch Apartments for apartment 4 at 441 Winfield in Topeka, Kansas. Shortly after moving in, she experienced serious problems with termites. Her walls swelled, clouds of dirt came out, and when she checked on her children one night, she saw termites flying around the room. She complained to Monarch, which arranged for the apartment to be fumigated. When the termite problem persisted, Monarch moved Love and her children to apartment 2. Upon moving in, Love noticed that roaches crawled over the walls, ceilings, and floors of the apartment. She complained, and Monarch called an exterminator, who sprayed the apartment. When the roach problem persisted, Love vacated the premises. Has Love lawfully terminated the lease? Explain.arrow_forwardLeonard Wolfe was killed in an automobile accident while driving his Toyota Camry. The car was rendered a total loss, and Wolfe’s insurance carrier paid his estate $18,550 for damage to the vehicle. Under the terms of Wolfe’s will, any car owned at his death was to be given to his brother, David. Wolfe’s daughter, Carol, however, brought an action, claiming that the gift of the car to David was adeemed by its total destruction and that she, as the residuary legatee under the will, was entitled to the insurance proceeds. Who is entitled to the insurance proceeds?arrow_forwardOn 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_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