Question
Andrews and Brown hired a bookkeeper, Jenice, and gave her general authority to issue company checks drawn on SunTrust Bank so that Jenice can pay employees’ wages and other company bills. Jenice decides to cheat her employers out of $10,000 by issuing a check payable to the Bayside Distributors, one of the suppliers of seafood and fresh local produce. Jenice does not intend for Bayside to receive any of the money, nor is Bayside entitled to the payment. Jenice endorses the check in Bayside’s name and deposits the check in an account that she opened at Wells Fargo Bank in the name “Bayfood Dist. Co.” Wells Fargo accepts the check and collects payment from the drawee bank, SunTrust. SunTrust charges [Name of Restaurant] account $10,000. Denice transfers $10,000 out of the Bayside account and closes it. [Name of Restaurant] discovers the fraud and demands that the bank return the money.
Evaluate which party or parties bear the loss.
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
This is a popular solution
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Step by stepSolved in 3 steps
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Why does the agent have personal liability when the principal is undisclosed?arrow_forwardDorian breeds Scottish Fold kittens and informs Stevie that she is a cat breeder. Stevie says she is interested in purchasing one of her kittens. Dorian calls Stevie a month later and says Stevie’s kitten is ready for pickup and Stevie owes her $1,000. Stevie refuses, stating they did not have a valid contract. Dorian states they did have a valid contract. Who is correct?arrow_forwardOwearrow_forward
- A consumer entered into an agreement with Rent-It Corporation for the rental of a television set at a charge of $17 per week. The agreement also provides that if the renter chooses to rent the set for seventy-eight consecutive weeks, title would be transferred. The consumer now contends that the agreement was really a sales agreement, not a lease, and therefore is a credit sale subject to the Truth-in-Lending Act. Explain whether the consumer is correct.arrow_forwardAssume an agent is given authority by the principal to sell a property. The principal only states that the agent may sell the property and the agent is given no further instructions. The agent reasonably believes that it will be necessary to perform $10,000 worth of improvements on the property in order to sell it. Therefore, the agent contracts to have these improvements made. He/she then sells the property. The principal believes that the improvements were not authorized and refuses to reimburse the agent for the expenses associated with the sale. Discuss the rights and liabilities of the principal and agent. Should the principal be forced to reimburse the agent? If the principal continues to refuse to reimburse the agent, what action may be taken by the agent? If the parties were to engage in a lawsuit, who would win? Why? If the answer depends on information not provided in the scenario, specify what further information one would need to render a firm opinion.arrow_forwardAmanda and Emilia are co-directors and members of Griffin Pty Ltd, which imports widgets from Vietnam and sells them in various hardware stores in regional NSW. Griffin has a medium-sized warehouse where it stocks goods, and from which it distributes products. Griffin recently signed a contract to supply a large hardware store in Orange and Dubbo with widgets. So the company ordered 10 pallets of widgets from its Vietnamese supplier and also paid a substantial deposit. A shipping company who carries goods into Australia has already brought the pallets into the country and has sent their bill to Griffin. After a couple of deliveries to the hardware store, a safety issue is discovered with the widgets and the government bans the sale of the widgets. the hardware store cancels all further orders of the widgets. Now, Griffin has no future revenue and its remaining stock of widgets cannot be sold. The shipping company is demanding payment of its invoice; there are also several…arrow_forward
- Carol White ordered a $225 pair of contact lenses through an optometrist. White, an emancipated minor, paid $100 by check and agreed to pay the remaining $125 at a later time. The doctor ordered the lenses, incurring a debt of $110. After the lenses were ordered, White called to cancel her order and stopped payment on the $100 check. The lenses could be used by no one but White. The doctor sued White for the value of the lenses. Will the doctor be able to recover the money from White? Explain.arrow_forwardSam owes Nick $200,000. Sam goes to Chase bank to take out a loan of $200,000 so he can pay off his debt to Nick. Chase agrees to make the loan but breaches its contract with Sam. Sam then defaults on his loan to Nick. Nick sues Chase bank because they breached their contract with Sam. What is the probable outcome of Nick’s suit against Chase?arrow_forwardMr. Oliver entered into contract with his friend Mr. Green to transport some material in two weeks’ time. About a month before the delivery was to be made, the material was banned by the legislature, and so delivery was not possible. Mr. Green could have been arrested by the police if he was caught delivering the goods, but he delivered it anyway. Mr. Oliver refuses to pay. i. What can you say about the contract Mr. Oliver and Mr. Green entered into? ii. Should Mr. Green have made the delivery? why or why not? iii. Can Mr. Green enforce payment? why or why not. iv. What was the impact of the legislative action on the contract?arrow_forward
- swiper 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_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_forwardSnitch, an officer of Undergrowth Corporation, tells Gumst about fraudulent dealings going on within Undergrowth, and urges Gumst to investigate the matter. Gumst begins to investigate and he discovers wrongdoing. During the investigation, he mentions to his friend Jittery some of the facts he is uncovering in his investigation. Jittery, who owns some stock in Undergrowth, sells it immediately and thus avoids the huge downswing in share price that ensues when the results of Gumst's investigation are announced. Has Gumst engaged in insider trading? No, because only the person who actually buys or sells the stock can commit insider trading. O No, because neither Snitch nor Gumst had any motive of personal gain. O No, because he was not an officer, director, or major shareholder of Undergrowth. Yes.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios