M sells goods to a rogue, R. R obtained the title of the goods despites his deceit intention. R appears to resell the goods to N, who is the innocent purchaser, and N obtained the title of the goods. Is the contract void or voidable? Can M recover the goods from N? Please state your reasons.
1. M sells goods to a rogue, R. R obtained the title of the goods despites his deceit intention. R appears to resell the goods to N, who is the innocent purchaser, and N obtained the title of the goods.
Is the contract void or voidable? Can M recover the goods from N? Please state your reasons.
2. Peter, who is a minor, hires a riding horse and promises to handle the animal with care, as the term of the contract stipulates. In his excitement, Peter injures the horse by riding it too hard. Queen, who is the owner of the horse, sues Peter for the breach of contract and tort of negligence.
Does the action of Queen proper?
Note: As per bartleby guidelines in case multiple questions are asked by the students then the expert is required to answer only first question. Please repost other questions again.
In this legal scenario, we have M (the original seller) selling items to a rogue, R, who acquired title to the commodities through deception. R then sold these things to N, an innocent customer, and N obtained ownership of the goods. The main issues here are whether M and R's contract is void or voidable, and if M can collect the items from N. This case involves complicated legal issues that necessitate a detailed investigation to identify the rights and obligations of the parties concerned.
Step by step
Solved in 4 steps
