Case summary:
Persons L and D, both residents of state In, listed the sale of their car P in an online auction website E stating that the winner of the bid is responsible for arranging and payment of delivery of the car. Persons A, residents of state Id won the auction and paid through online payment service P for auction amount and arranged for delivery. They acquired the delivery, not satisfied with the car stating that car is different from shown in auction website and stopped their online payment. Persons L and D sued in courts of state ‘In’ demanding in $5,900 damages.
To discuss: If courts of state I have jurisdiction over Persons A.
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionChapter 3 Solutions
Lms Integrated Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card For Mann/roberts’ Smith And Roberson’s Business Law, 17th
- Johnson, who owned a hardware store, was indebted to Hutchinson, one of her suppliers. Johnson sold her business to Lockhart, one of Johnson’s previous competitors, who combined the inventory from Johnson’s store with his own and moved them to a new, larger store. Hutchinson claims that Lockhart must pay Johnson’s debt because the sale of the business had been made without complying with the requirements of the bulk sales law. Discuss whether Lockhart is obligated to pay Hutchison’s debt to Johnson.arrow_forwardNew West Fruit Corporation (New West) and Coastal Berry Corporation are both brokers of fresh strawberries. In the second half of 2012, New West’s predecessor, Monc’s Consolidated Produce, Inc., loaned money and strawberry plants to a group of strawberry growers known as Cooperativa La Paz (La Paz). In September 2012, Monc’s and La Paz signed a “Sales and Marketing Agreement” to allow Monc’s the exclusive right to market the strawberries grown by La Paz during the 2012–2014 season. The agreement did not mention the advances of money or plants, but did give Monc’s a security interest in all crops and proceeds on specified property in the 2013–2014 season. The financing statement was properly signed and filed. Monc’s closed down in January 2014, and its assets were assigned to New West. In April, New West learned that La Paz had agreed to market its 2014 crop through Coastal Berry. New West immediately arranged a meeting to advise the Coastal Berry officers of its contract with the…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_forward
- Walker, the CEO of Memphis Mini Golf and Go Carts (MMGGC), wanted to sell the business to Go Carts, Golf & Games. To provide a basis for the transaction, Walker retained Blanchard, an accountant, to conduct an audit of MMGGC. Blanchard was aware that Go Carts, Golf & Games would likely use the audit report in consideration of the purchase of the business from MMGGC. Blanchard's audit report showed that MMGGC’s business was profitable. William, Go Cart’s president, relied on this report in agreeing to purchase the business of MMGGC and in agreeing to the terms of the purchase. Sometime later, it was discovered that the accountant made a number of mistakes and that the business that was sold was actually insolvent. William and Go Carts sued Walker and Blanchard for damages. The suit claimed that the accountant had negligently misrepresented the facts. Discuss the arguments for each party, determine which party should win, and provide legal support for your decision.arrow_forwardDennis and Donna Smith owned a 10-acre tract of land that they decided to sell. The couple entered into a listing agreement with Kelly McLaughlin, a licensed real estate broker. The agreement gave Kelly the exclusive right to sell the property for a period of 6 months. The Smiths agreed to pay Kelly a 6% commission of the selling price if a buyer was found during the listing period. Four months later, the Smiths sent Kelly a letter terminating the listing agreement. Kelly did not approve of the conditions. One month later, Kelly presented a full price offer to the Smiths; however, they ignored the offer and sold the property to another buyer. Kelly sued the Smiths for breach of the agency agreement. Which party wins the lawsuit? Did the Smiths act ethically in this case?arrow_forwardIn late 2013 or early 2014, the plaintiff, Lan England, agreed to sell 258,363 shares of stock to the defendant, Eugene Horbach, for $2.75 per share, for a total price of $710,498.25. Although the purchase money was to be paid in the first quarter of 2014, the defendant made periodic payments on the stock at least through September 2014. The parties met in May of 2015 to finalize the transaction. At this time, the plaintiff believed that the defendant owed at least $25,000 of the original purchase price. The defendant did not dispute that amount. The parties then reached a second agreement whereby the defendant agreed to pay to the plaintiff an additional $25,000 and to hold in trust 2 percent of the stock for the plaintiff. In return, the plaintiff agreed to transfer the stock and to forego his right to sue the defendant for breach of the original agreement. In December 2016, the plaintiff made a demand for the 2 percent stock, but the defendant refused, contending that the 2 percent…arrow_forward
- Joseph and Mai each bought shares of Apple stock at $200 per share. About a week later, Joseph called his stockbroker and told him that if Apple was trading below $195, he wanted to sell. The broker was very busy, so he didn’t check but Apple was trading at $194 per share. He told Joseph that it was not below $195, so Joseph did not sell the stock. Mai also called her stockbroker that day also and told him that if Apple was trading below $195, she wanted to sell. Once again, the broker was very busy, so he didn’t check but Apple was trading at $194 per share. He told Mai that it was not below $195. However, Mai saw the price on her computer and knew it was $94. However, Mai did not sell either. Apple dropped to $180 per share by the end of the day and they both sold suffering a large loss. They both sue the brokers. What are the probable outcomes of the suits?arrow_forwardB. Hawkeye Bank & Trust and affiliated banks agreed to refer bank customers to Financial Marketing Services, Inc. (FMS) for the purchase of life insurance. Hawkeye and FMS shared the commissions. Hawkeye employees and some independent agents licensed through FMS made the actual sales; however, all insurance business was FMS’ property. Because of concern about the confidentiality of bank customer information, Hawkeye decided to terminate its contract with FMS and sell insurance directly to its customers. The independent agents claimed Hawkeye terminating the contract with FMS constituted intentional interference with the agents’ contracts and prospective relations. Was it? Explain your position.arrow_forwardExecutive 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?arrow_forward
- The standard of reivew used by the Connecticut Supreme Court in determining whether the takings were constitutional under the 5th Amendment was: a. The takings were reasonably necessary to achieve the City of New London's intended public use. b. The takings were substantially necessary to achieve the City of New London's intended public use. c. There was clear and convincing evidence that the economic benefits of City of New London's plan would in fact come to pass. d. The evidence was beyond a reasonable doubt that the economic benefits of the City of New London's plan would in fact come to pass.arrow_forwardAn agent is NOT personally liable on a contract made with a third party when: 1) neither the existence, nor the name of the principal is known to the third party. 2) the name and existence of the principal are known to the third party. 3) the agent makes the contract with the third party in his/her personal capacity as a co-signor or obligor with the principal. 4) the existence, but not the name of the principal is known to the third party.arrow_forwardCari enters a single-agency relationship with a listing broker, who owes her full disclosure and loyalty. The listing broker then finds Buyer Bonnie who wants that same broker to represent her in a transaction broker relationship, providing Bonnie with certain duties such as limited confidentiality. Can the broker represent Cari in a single-agency relationship AND represent Bonnie as a transaction broker in the same transaction? No, because offering Bonnie limited confidentiality would conflict with the full disclosure already owed to Cari. Yes, but only if the limited confidentiality owed to Bonnie is needed to fulfill Cari's objective of selling the property. Yes, as long as the broker tries to be fair to br + parties.arrow_forward
- Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill EducationManagement (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSONSpreadsheet 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:PEARSONBusiness Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSONFundamentals of Management (10th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134237473Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De CenzoPublisher:PEARSON