Mgmt 108 ALL HOMEWORK
Q4 Which of the following pretrial testimony is taken under oath, out of court, and may be used at trial: a. Complaint b. Depositions c. Pleadings d. Demurrer e. All of the above
Answer: b. A deposition is a pretrial testimony taken under oath, out of court, and may be used at trial. A complaint is what notifies the defendant that they are being sued by the plaintiffs. Pleadings are the initial notice of controversy between both parties. A demurrer is a motion to dismiss specifically within the state of California.
Sean, 17, a snowboarder, signs a long-term endorsement agreement for sportswear. He endorses the products and deposits his compensation for the endorsements for several years. At age 19, he decides he wants to void the agreement to take a better endorsement deal. He claims he lacked capacity when he signed the deal at 17. Can he get out of the contract?
At the time Sean signs the contract he is considered a minor at age 17. However, the endorsement contract would only be voidable due to lack of capacity if he voided it shortly after reaching the age of majority or beforehand. Therefore, because he only tried to get out of the contract at age 19 (and not earlier) after depositing his compensation for several years, his age capacity argument is no longer valid and he most likely will not be able to get out of the contract.
Which of the following contract(s) do not have to be in writing under the Statute of Frauds? 1. The agreement of a father made to his son that if his son doesn't pay his fraternity bill, he would pay it. 2. A two year option contract to purchase a movie script. 3. A contract of employment for a term of nine months, performance to commence four months after the agreement was entered into. 4. Two of the above are correct.
1 does NOT have to be in writing because the promise is made directly to the debtor vs the creditor ( which would then need to be in writing). 2 does not have to be in writing as it can be performed within a year ( person can exercise the option at any time). 3 DOES have to be in writing since it cannot be performed within 12 months from the date it was entered into (9+4=13 months). So all in all, the answer would be 4
Wally contracts in writing to buy 1,000 pounds of fertilizer from Theodore Garden Supplies for $25,000, delivery to be made by the following Wednesday. Wally informed Theodore Garden Supplies that the fertilizer is needed to landscape a new hotel and must be delivered by the following Wednesday. Wally intends to make a profit of $50,000 for the landscaping job. The following Tuesday, Theodore notifies Wally, "I'm backing out of the deal...the price I gave you is too low because of inflation." Wally calls several other suppliers on Tuesday and is told to deliver the same quantity of fertilizer in a day will cost $35,000. Wally buys the fertilizer for $35,000 and completes the project for the hotel on time and received his full profit from the hotel. Wally wishes to file a lawsuit against Theodore. recover any of the following and why? 1. Specific performance 2. Compensatory damages 3. Consequential damages.
2: The answer would just be compensatory damages, as there would not be any consequential damages that Theodore can recover as that he would be able to recover in a consequence of a breach, but in this case, he would just receive the monetary compensatory damages.
ABC Co. borrowed $1,000,000 from Local Bank for working capital and gave its inventory, proceeds and after-acquired inventory as security. Local Bank took a security agreement and filed a UCC-1 on April 1, 2015. On January 3d of the next year, ABC Co. contracted to buy 50 pianos for its store from Black Walnut Piano Company. Black Walnut agreed to sell them to ABC Co. on credit, reserving, pursuant to an agreement, a security interest in the pianos to secure their purchase price. Black Walnut filed a UCC-1 on Jan. 8, 2016 and delivered the pianos on Jan. 9. On March 3d of that year, Cathy bought a piano from ABC Co. on credit, signing a promissory note and a security agreement. ABC Co. did not file a UCC-1. Months later, ABC Co. fails to pay any of its debts. A) Can Black Walnut or Local Bank repossess the piano sold to Cathy? B) Which creditor has the superior interest in the pianos in ABC's inventory?
A) Can Black Walnut or Local Bank repossess the piano sold to Cathy Consumer? No, neither Black Walnut or Local Bank can repossess the piano sold to Cathy as she is considered just a "buyer in the ordinary course of business" and therefore is free from any security interest created by the seller. This is an exception to the general rule of the first party to either file or perfect wins superior interest. B) Which creditor, Local bank or Black Walnut, has the superior interest in the Black Walnut pianos in ABC's inventory? Local bank has superior interest in the Black Walnut pianos in ABC's inventory. Local Bank attached and perfected when they took the security agreement and filed the UCC-1 Statement on April 1. Black Walnut did not file their UCC-1 until January 8th of the following year. However, Black Walnut established a blanket lien with ABC Co by holding a security interest over the piano inventory. Therefore Black Walnut has a Purchase Money Security Interest (PMSI) in Inventory, where they would have priority over a prior perfected security party (aka Local Bank) for the inventory. However, in order for this exception to the general rule to work, Black Walnut would have had to notify Local Bank before the delivery of the piano inventory (not just file the UCC-1), which it does not say they did in the problem. Therefore the exception would not go through and Local Bank would have superior interest.
On May 2, 1990 SAFE BANK discussed the possibility of loaning Tyler Corp. $500,000. Tyler signed a security agreement and UCC-1 Financing Statement covering its existing equipment. On May 4th, SAFE BANK properly filed the UCC-1 Financing Statement. On May 7, Tyler approached ONE TIME CREDIT about borrowing $600,000 secured by the same equipment. On that same day, ONE TIME CREDIT obtained a signed security agreement, promissory note, and UCC-1 Financing Statement from Tyler Corp, gave Tyler the money and properly filed the UCC-1 Financing Statement. On May 10, Tyler signed a promissory note and received the $500,000 from SAFE BANK. A) If Tyler defaults on both loans, who has a superior interest in the equipment? B) Would your answer change if ONE TIME CREDIT took possession of the collateral instead of filing a UCC-1 Financing Statement?
A) If Tyler defaults on both loans, who has a superior interest in the equipment? SAFE BANK has a superior interest in the loan. Although Tyler did not sign the promissory note and receive the money until May 10 with SAFE BANK to complete the perfecting and attachment process (three days after ONE TIME CREDIT), in this case the superior interest would go to the first to file OR perfect. Even though SAFE BANK was perfected after ONE TIME CREDIT, SAFE BANK is the first to file the UCC-1 and therefore gets superior interest. B) Would your answer change if ONE TIME CREDIT took possession of the collateral instead of filing a UCC-1 Financing Statement? My answer would not change because the same concept as part (A) still applies. Even if ONE TIME CREDIT took possession of the collateral, SAFE BANK was still the first to file their UCC-1 and so would have superior interest. SAFE BANK filed their UCC-1 and signed the security agreement on May 2nd, which is before the May 7th date when ONE TIME CREDIT became perfected- whether that be through UCC-1 or taking possession of the collateral (both valid requirements to perfect) does not alter the answer.
Marina Inc. sells and services sailboats. On April 1, Marina financed the purchase of its entire inventory with ACE Finance Company. ACE required Marina to execute a security agreement and a UCC-1 financing statement covering the inventory and proceeds. On April 4, ACE properly filed the UCC-1 Financing Statement covering the inventory, proceeds and after-acquired inventory. On April 27, Marina sold one of the sailboats to Wally for use in his charter business for $100,000 ($50,000 cash and $50,000 on credit). Wally, who had once worked for Marina, knew that Marina regularly financed its inventory with ACE. Marina defaults on its obligations to ACE. Can ACE repossess the sailboat purchased by Wally?
ACE cannot repossess the sailboat purchased by Wally. Marina Inc selling the boat to Wally is an example of a "buyer in the ordinary course of business," so Wally's previous knowledge of Marina Inc. financing with ACE is not relevant (not a buyer of a consumer good from another consumer). ACE established a floating lien with Marina Inc. by taking a security interest in its inventory (and therefore has collateral on Marina's proceeds and after-acquired equipment). Therefore, ACE is still entitled to repossess Marina's proceeds, after-acquired inventory, equipment, and after-acquired equipment but Wally, as a buyer in the ordinary course of business, does not have to give up his boat.
Benji was a medical student who had low expenses, low income and a great credit score. His sister Sharla took out a real estate loan from Big Bank in Benji's name, using his good credit. Benji did not give any collateral to secure the loan and did not receive any of the loan proceeds. Ultimately, the loan went into default. The lender sued Benji and got a judgment against him in the amount of $800,000.Today, Benji is a successful doctor. He is a homeowner with a house in Los Angeles valued at $600,000 and a secured mortgage (a secured loan) on the house of $500,000. He is 45 years old and married. Other than the house, his assets are minimal. He still owes $50,000 on student loans, which he pays monthly. How would Benji benefit by filing under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code?
Benji would benefit by filing under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy code by being able to receive a "discharge" of his debt judgment of $800,000. In order to receive a discharge, and therefore no longer owe his debt, Benji must be in good faith and have the tradeoff. Benji is in good faith because of his great credit score, his consistent payments of student debt, and his overall trustworthiness from his successful career and the fact it was his sister, not him, who took out the huge loan. Additionally, he has his property of estate information available to the trustee for tradeoff. He is able to get discharged because he is an alive individual and it does not appear that he has gotten a discharge in the last eight years. It is important to note that his $50,000 student loans cannot be discharged under the nondischargeable debts rule. In a chapter 7 bankruptcy his house would be treated under the new 1/1/2021 California homestead exemption, where he would be allowed to keep the greater of $300,000 or the median price in the county, not to exceed $600,000 in equity. Due to the value of the house being $600,000 and having a secured loan of $500,000- Benji has $100,000 of equity in the home (not exceeding $600,000). Because his mortgage is secure and assuming he will keep paying it off, Benji will be able to exempt his $100,000 of equity and most likely therefore be able to keep his house because there is no more equity for the trustee to collect.
Robert executed a valid promissory note and security agreement with First Time Bank covering Robert's new purchase of machinery and equipment for his new factory. However, First Time Bank failed to perfect its security interest in the equipment and machinery. Six months later, Robert defaults on the loan with First Time Bank. Robert did not sell the machinery & equipment or use it as collateral for another loan. Without taking any additional actions (i.e. filing a UCC-1 Financing Statement), can First Time Bank repossess Robert's new machinery and equipment?
First Time Bank did not perfect its security interest in the equipment and machinery by not filing a UCC-1 statement or taking possession of it. However, under Article 9 of the UCC, First Time Bank did establish attachment to create a security interest in the machinery and equipment. Robert executed a valid promissory note and security agreement - establishing value to the debtor, right to collateral, and written proof of the agreement (attachment). Therefore, First Time Bank does have the right to repossess Robert's new machinery and equipment. Perfection does not need to be established because Robert did not sell the machinery and equipment or try to use it as collateral for another loan (no competition over who gets the collateral).
Patrick offered in writing to sell his house to Jarrod for $1,950,000. Jarrod was interested but did not wish to decide immediately so he asked Patrick if he would hold the offer open for thirty days in exchange for $5,000. Patrick agreed in writing and received the $5,000. Three days later Jarrod called Patrick and told him he was not sure he could purchase the property because of financing concerns, but he was still working on it. The next week, Patrick sold the house to Nick. If Jarrod accepts Patrick's offer within the 30 days period, explain whether there is or is not a contract.
If Jarrod accepts Patrick's offer within the 30 days period, a contract does exist. Because Patrick agreed in writing to receive $5,000 from Jarrod in exchange for keeping the offer open for thirty days- consideration is established and therefore Patrick is legally required to keep the offer open for Jarrod (not revoke it) for thirty days. This is considered consideration as a bargain was made ($5,000 for making the offer irrevocable for thirty days) and Jarrod does not legally have to give Patrick $5,000 and Patrick is refraining from his legal right to revoke the offer for thirty days. The contract holds for the 30 day period unless Jarrod rejects the offer or counteroffers.
When Officer Krupke arrested Tony, a scuffle ensued. Tony believes that Krupke used excessive force in making the arrest. He wants to sue Krupke for violating his federal constitutional rights in a civil action. His injuries amount to about $25,000 of medical bills. Both Tony and Krupke are citizens of New York. Can Tony file his case in Federal District court in NY?
In order for Tony to be able to file his case in the Federal District court in New York, he must have subject matter jurisdiction. As discussed in previous questions, in order to have subject matter jurisdiction for a federal hearing, there must be either "Federal Question" Jurisdiction or Diversity Jurisdiction present in the complaint. There would be no Diversity Jurisdiction present because the amount in damages is under $75,000 and both Tony and Krupke are citizens of New York (no "diversity of citizenship" present). However, because Tony is suing Krupke for violating his constitutional rights, this does become a "Federal Question" Jurisdiction issue that can be deemed present in the matter. Therefore, Tony can still file his case in the Federal District Court in New York.
Harvey is a resident of California. Harvey files an action in Los Angeles County Superior Court, California against Amazon alleging $100,000 in damages in a claim arising under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Amazon is properly served a summons and complaint in California. Amazon requests that its attorney file a Demurrer for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Will Amazon win the Motion? Please explain why or why not.
In order to have subject matter jurisdiction in federal court, there must be either "Federal Question" Jurisdiction or Diversity Jurisdiction present in the complaint. There would be no Diversity Jurisdiction present because although the damages exceed $75,000, both Harvey and Amazon do not pass the "diversity of citizenship" test as they are both present in California. However, Harvey would have subject matter jurisdiction due to "Federal Question" Jurisdiction as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a Constitutional and federal law controversy arising. Because Harvey is filing for a federal issue with concurrent jurisdiction, both state and federal courts have the proper subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, Amazon will most likely not win the motion to have their case demurred.
Susan, a Los Angeles resident, appears on a new NBC reality show. Susan is the first to be "kicked off the island" and leaves the show. On her way out, she destroys some of the furniture on the set. NBC is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in New York, where the show is filmed. NBC has offices and conducts business in Los Angeles, San Diego and San Francisco. Humiliated by the loss, Susan plans to sue NBC for breach of contract, fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, seeking $200,000 in damages. Susan is considering filing her lawsuit in a California federal court. Explain whether the federal courts would or would not have subject matter jurisdiction
In the realm of litigation, in order for the federal court to have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case, there must be either "Federal Question" Jurisdiction or Diversity Jurisdiction present. Right off the bat, federal question jurisdiction can be ruled out because Susan's behavior on the NBC show is not necessarily an issue in Constitutional or federal treaties (state laws can handle emotional distress issues). In order for there to be Diversity Jurisdiction for the federal courts, the lawsuit must exceed $75,000 in damages and both parties must be primary dociles of different states ("diversity of citizenship"). The lawsuit exceeds $75,000 with $200,000 of damages. Additionally, because NBC is a corporation, both Delaware and New York count as primary residences for their "diversity of citizenship." Because Susan is a Los Angeles resident (and not a resident of either Delaware or New York) and the lawsuit exceeds $75,000, Susan passes the "diversity of citizenship test" and therefore has Diversity Jurisdiction and the right to move her case out of state courts and to the California federal court.
Jessica had worked for ABC Corp. for 30 years and was retiring. ABC Corp. had no pension benefits for its retiring employees at the time she decided to retire. However, the Board of Directors of ABC corporation voted to give Jessica $1,000/week "for 10 years" as a retirement benefit to honor the fact that she was the first employee to retire after working for 30 years. The president of ABC announced this decision about the pension at Jessica's retirement banquet. ABC Corp paid Jessica $1,000/week over a period of 2 years, until a new Board of Directors voted to cease any more payments to Jessica because of financial difficulties. Based solely on the facts provided, if Jessica sues ABC Corp to resume payment of the $ 1,000/week, will she win, why or why not?
Jessica will not win because she has no consideration with ABC Corp. to prevent them from revoking their offer. There was no bargain to make the offer have consideration because Jessica had already worked for ABC Corp. for thirty years when there were no pension benefits established so their vote to give her the $1,000/week as an honor is more of a gift (ABC Corp. got nothing in return for the offer)- which is not legally enforceable and can be revoked.
Sylvia, an elderly widow who is almost deaf, owns her own home. Her closest confidant for business transactions is her son-in-law, Ron. Ron offered to purchase her home for $100,000. The home had recently been appraised at $200,000, but Sylvia agreed, in writing, to sell when Ron persisted in making the offer. She never asked and he never volunteered information about the appraised value of the house. If Sylvia later desires to set aside that sale, what is her best argument against the validity of the contract?
Sylvia's best argument against the validity of the contract would be undue influence. Inadequate consideration is not a valid argument as discrepancies in property values alone is not inadequate and she never asked for the value of the house. There is no duress as she was not forced to do anything. There is not lack of capacity because although she is almost deaf and elderly, she is still mentally capable of making the decision. Therefore undue influence is the best argument as she has a personal relationship with Ron (son-in-law) and there is an imbalance of power as she trusts him in making business transactions.
Karla Johnson, a resident of Iowa, appeals a case to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, and wins. If a case involving the similar facts is brought on appeal in the Fourth Circuit, must the Fourth circuit follow the decision of the Seventh Circuit?
The Fourth Circuit does not not have to follow the decision of the Seventh Court of Appeals because the decision made in one Court Circuit of Appeals is only binding within the boundaries of the federal district courts that are located within that circuit.
Initially, they would like to hire two people, a web designer and a consultant. The consultant will work full-time for Vircon, have substantial decision making authority, will work at either the main office or at client sites, receive a salary and expenses reimbursed, use Vircon's equipment, and will not receive any benefits, such as medical insurance. The web designer will work from his/her home, use his/her own equipment, be paid hourly, may have other clients and will not receive any benefits, such as medical insurance. Both workers have written contracts indicating they are independent contractors. Is the Vircon consultant an independent contractor or an employee under the new ABC test in California (exclude the exemptions from your analysis)? Is the web designer an independent contractor or an employee under the new ABC test in California?
The Vircon consultant is an employee under the new ABC test in California. In order to be classified as an independent contractor, the employer (Vircon) must prove the consultant provides a service free from the company's control, the service provided is outside the company's core business, and the contractor is an independent professional engaged in providing their service to companies other than Vircon. In this case, the consultant has "substantial decision making authority" and provides consulting services (a core business service), and works full-time for Vircon on salary rather than other companies- so therefore would not pass the ABC test and be considered an independent contractor with the information given. The written contract saying they are an independent contractor does not matter when the reality of the relationship implies employee status. the Web Designer would be considered an employee. In California an employer must meet all 3 requirements to prove their workers are independent contractors the contractor provides the service free from the control; & the service provided is outside the company's core business, such as a janitor at a law firm; & the contractor is an independent professional engaged in providing their service to companies other than the one in question. SO, the answer to the question is that since both the web designer & the consultant are part of Vircon's core business, thus they do not fulfill the 2nd requirement listed in the ABC test and are both employees
Instead of selling the bracelet, Donald gives it to Lorraine as he intended. Donald declares bankruptcy still owing the Mayor $7,500. Mayor sues Lorraine. To whom should the court award possession of the bracelet?
The court should grant possession to Mayor Jewelry as there is no "buyer of a consumer good from another consumer" situation in place as she was just given the bracelet and has no purchasing rights over it. There are no other perfected creditors in the situation since the bracelet was not repurchased by Lorraine, so Mayor Jewelry still has the secured rights to the bracelet collateral.
Instead of selling the bracelet or giving it to Lorraine, Donald uses the bracelet as collateral to borrow $10,000 from First National Bank. He signs a security agreement giving the bank a security interest in the bracelet. For safekeeping the bank stores the bracelet in its vault. Donald declares bankruptcy. To whom should the court award the bracelet? Would your answer be different if the Mayor or First National had filed a financing statement?
The court would still award the bracelet to Mayor Jewelry. Although Donald's transaction with First National Bank is perfected because the bank took possession of the collateral, the general priority rule between two perfected creditors still applies with no exceptions. Therefore, because Mayor Jewelry perfected first under the PMSI "automatic perfection" rule, they win superior interest over the bracelet. Even if Mayor or First National had filed a financing statement, Mayor Jewelry still perfected first and therefore would win.
Samuel DaGrossa and others were planning to open a restaurant. At some point prior to August 2018, DaGrossa orally agreed with Philippe LaJaunie that LaJaunie, in exchange for his contribution in designing, renovating, and managing the restaurant, "could purchase a one-third interest in the restaurant's stock if the restaurant was profitable after its first year of operation". The restaurant opened in March 2019, and a few weeks later, LaJaunie's employment was terminated. LaJaunie brought an action to enforce the stock-purchase agreement. Explain fully whether this oral agreement is enforceable under the Statute of Frauds?
The oral agreement is not enforceable under the Statute of Frauds because the contract could not be performed within one year of the date the agreement was formed. The agreement was made before August 2018 that LaJaunie could purchase stock if the restaurant was profitable after the first year of business. Therefore, if the restaurant opened in March of 2019 it would not be until March of 2020 where profitability would be able to be measured- which is over a year and therefore makes the oral contract not valid.
.One day Helmut, an employee of Vircon, driving negligently, severely injured Thelma and her prize poodle Fifi in a car accident while he was on his way back to work after visiting a new client located about 5 miles from the office. Thelma and Fifi live in Arizona and were only in Los Angeles, where the accident occurred, to get Fifi groomed by her favorite stylist for her next show. Needless to say, Thelma is furious and plans to sue Vircon and Helmut for at least $300,000. Vircon does not have any appropriate insurance coverage for this accident. (A) On what legal basis can Thelma sue Vircon for the injuries she sustained in the car accident with Helmut?
Thelma can sue Vircon for the injuries she sustained in the car accident on the legal basis that Helmut is an employee who negligently injured her during the scope of his employment with Vircon, making Vircon liable. Helmut was heading home from a client visit, which is a normal duty of his employment, so Thelma can argue he was still in the scope of employment even though he was not in the office. Vircon also did not have insurance coverage for the accident, so they can be held liable to sue.
Marie was a famous model. Temp magazine mailed her an offer to do a five-page photo layout for a new line of swimsuits for $135,000. Marie received the offer January 2. On January 3, Marie mailed Tempo the following note:"I accept, but must have twelve pages devoted to me and accordingly, $150,000."Tempo received this note on January 5. On January 6, Marie called them and told them she would do the modeling under the original terms, but Temp refused. Is there a contract, explain why or why not?
There is no contract in this case because when Marie mailed Tempo her note accepting if she could have twelve pages and $150,000, she created a counteroffer. A counteroffer insists and demands change from the original contract offered (which was only five pages and $135,000) and therefore makes the offer revocable and gives Temp the right to refuse even if Marie called later to do the original agreement.
July 1, Jane sent Harry a signed letter offering to sell Harry her home for $2,500,000. In the letter, Jane stated that she would keep the offer open for 30 days. On July 15, Harry called Jane and stated that "The price for your home seems really high, I wish you would contemplate selling it for $2,000,000." On July 17, Jane receives a letter from Juan offering to purchase her condominium for $2,550,000. Jane immediately calls Harry and revokes her offer and then sends Juan an email accepting his. On July 27, Harry calls and insists he has right to purchase the property and therefore officially accepts, in writing, the offer under all the terms stated in the July 1 letter, including the $2,500,000 purchase price. Jane reminds him that she already revoked the offer and that too late because she has contracted to sell the property to Juan. Enforceable contract between Jane and Harry?
There is no enforceable contract between Jane and Harry because although Harry's request to buy the house for $2,000,000 could be argued as not a counteroffer (he only "wished" she would "contemplate" selling it for that much, not demanding it)- there was no binding consideration established to keep the offer open for thirty days. Although Jane said she would keep it open for thirty days, she is not legally required to do so because there was no bargain between Jane and Harry to make the offer irrevocable and therefore she has the right to terminate her offer.
In addition to its own sales of a wide range of retail products, DotBomb sells advertising space on its site. It does so through a team of in-house sales people, whom advertisers contact by calling a number on the "Contact Us" page of the website. DotBomb's sales people make cold calls to potential advertisers, which they can follow up with marketing materials including their business cards. Jenny, one of the firm's salespeople, recently scored a huge victory, selling a one-year advertising deal with AutoMax. It is customary in the industry for contracts of this nature to be sold by salespeople without prior approval. However, subsequently her supervisor reminded her that under the firm's internal sales team handbook, contracts in excess of six months require approval by DotBomb's CEO.Did Jenny have authority to enter into this contract such that AutoMax will be able to enforce the contract against DotBo
Under agency law, this is an example of a contract being entered between a third party (AutoMax) and an agent (Jenny) on behalf of a principal (DotBomb). In this case Jenny did not have expressed authority to enter into the contract because DotBomb never expressed direct approval. However, she would have apparent authority to act for DotBomb, so AutoMax will be able to enforce the contract against DotBomb. Although Jenny does not have authority according to her sales team handbook, DotBomb created an impression that she would have authority to AutoMax because they have their salespeople run cold calls, it is customary to not seek prior approval, and Jenny actually made the deal with them (rather than saying she needed to check the handbook rules). Therefore, because DotBomb is responsible for Jenny's actions as her employer, they created the apparent behavior that Jenny would have full authority to make the deal-therefore establishing apparent authority.
Donald purchased a diamond bracelet from Mayor Jewelry as a present for Lorraine. Donald signed a written contract agreeing to pay for the bracelet in forty-eight monthly installments and granted Mayor a security interest in the bracelet. Donald took possession of the bracelet. The owner of Mayor Jewelry advised the store manager to be certain that she perfect the security interest immediately. The store manager did not file a financing statement. Two weeks later, the Mayor's owner asks the store manager if she had perfected the security interest and she replies "of course, there is nothing to worry about." Is she correct?
Yes, she is correct that they are perfected, as it was automatically perfected at the time of attachment because it was a Purchase Money Security Interest in a Consumer good. However, there is something to worry about because if a Consumer1 sells a consumer item to another consumer 2, there is an exception to the general rule.... Consumer 2 will be able to keep the item even if there is a prior perfected secured party (Mayor), but only if Consumer 2 did not know about the prior perfected interest and Mayor did not file a financing statement
Sister's husband died of a heart attack. Sister, who lived in Buffalo, called her brother-in-law in San Antonio and told him she had no money and no place to live. Brother-in-law told Sister she could live in a spare room in his house. Sister traveled to San Antonio and upon her arrival, Brother-in-law informed her that he had rented the room to a college student. Sister's best chance of enforcing brother-in-law's promise is to argue: a. The promise is supported by consideration and therefore a valid contract was formed. b. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel c. Implied Contract d. Unilateral contract e. None of the above
b. The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel: The Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel is the best argument because based on the promise Brother made to Sister, she then took steps that caused damage by traveling all the way to San Antonio just to have no place to live. The offerer (Brother) knew that the offeree (Sister) would take steps because of his offer and then Sister relied on him and took the steps of traveling to San Antonio and caused detriment when Brother did not follow through.
Instead of giving the bracelet to Lorraine, Donald sells the bracelet for $10,000 to his friend Ronald, who retains it for his own use. Prior to purchasing the bracelet, Ronald asks Donald if the bracelet is free and clear of all liens and Donald replies "yes". Shortly thereafter, Donald declares bankruptcy, still owing $7,500 to Mayor Jewelry. After Ronald refuses to give the bracelet to the Mayor, Mayor sues Ronald . To whom should the court award possession? Would your answer be different if the Mayor filed a financing statement?
possession would be awarded to Ronald. The transaction between Donald and Ronald is deemed a "buyer of a consumer good from another consumer" situation, where Ronald is the buyer. In this situation, Ronald is free from the prior secured party's interest because no UCC-1 financing statement was filed and Ronald purchased the goods having no prior knowledge of the security interest between Donald and Mayor (he even asked and Donald lied). If Mayor filed a financing statement, then the court should award possession to Mayor Jewelry. Ronald would have public information available to know about the security interest so his exception would no longer be valid.
