14. Fred buys a nice-looking vehicle at an auto auction and later discovers, through problems with the car's electrical system, that the vehicle had been totaled. Which of the following disclaimers would have tipped Fred off to the true nature of the vehicle? " buyer beware . " washed title" salvage only Od. " uncertain title" and known to participate in street

The insured is covered under O.A.P. 1 Owner’s Policy including Direct Compensation-Property Damage and is involved in an accident in Ontario with an automobile, for which he/she is not at fault. His/her car is severely damaged and personal belongings in the car are destroyed. Which one (1) of the following statements is correct? O A) Damage to the insured's car and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the third party’s policy. O B) Damage to the insured’s car, replacement of destroyed personal belongings and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the insured’s policy, less the policy deductible. O C) Damage to the insured’s car, replacement of destroyed personal belongings and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the third party's policy. O D) Only damage to the insured’s car and reimbursement for a rental vehicle are covered by the insured's policy.

1. Happy Farms, Inc. ordered 1,000 gallons of a specialty pesticide, “Berry Good,” for its berry crop. The total price of the order was $15,000. Happy Farms paid $5,000 up front and promised to pay the balance upon delivery. JA changed the order to a newer product “Very Berry Good” without notice to or consents from Happy Farms. Upon delivery, the head farmer at Happy Farms, Allison Kagan, noted that the product was not the same as she ordered. Later that afternoon, Kagan notified JA that the pesticide was not what she had ordered and refused to pay the balance on the shipment. Happy Farms held the boxes of pesticide, but, to date, JA has not retrieved them. What are JA’s legal options in this situation? 2. Martin Rupe worked as the manager of one of JA’s retail outlets. A customer came in and offered to buy all remaining “Berry Good” pesticide for…

Reed, a manager for XYZ Products, issued company checks to pay his personal debts.  So that no one in the company would know what he was doing, he disguised the name of the payees.  For example, to pay his American Credit Card bill, he issued the XYZ check to “American.” XYZ Products sued the recipients of the checks, such as American Credit Card, demanding that the funds be returned.  The trial court ruled against XYZ Products concluding that the Defendant-Payee, American Credit Card, was a holder in due course and thus took the checks free of any claims or defenses.    Was the trial court correct in ruling that American Credit Card is a holder in due course? Why? What law is applicable?  Can Reed be held criminally liable for his actions? Why or why not?  Can Reed be civilly liable for his actions? To whom might Reed be liable and for what? 4. What is the business lesson to be learned from this case? Is this a fair result based on public policy constructs applicable to property…