Person I is the owner of motor company I dealt in the repairs as well as the vending of Oldsmobile. Person W entered to a contract to purchase motor company I , which person I said comprised the franchise of Oldsmobile. After the sale, though, Motors G repudiated to transfer the franchise to person W. Then person W returned the property to person I and bought this action seeking recession of the contract. To discuss: Whether the agreement be withdrawing.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 17CP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: Person I is the owner of motor company I dealt in the repairs as well as the vending of Oldsmobile. Person W entered to a contract to purchase motor company I, which person I said comprised the franchise of Oldsmobile. After the sale, though, Motors G repudiated to transfer the franchise to person W. Then person W returned the property to person I and bought this action seeking recession of the contract.

To discuss: Whether the agreement be withdrawing.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Tri R Angus, a closely held corporation, was owned 80 percent by Jon and Frances Neiman, who were also directors of Tri R Angus. Troy Neiman and Carol Lewis owned 12 percent of Tri R Angus’s shares. Troy and Carol asked a court to remove Jon and Frances as directors of the corporation on the grounds that they authorized Tri R Angus to distribute its assets in violation of state law, inappropriately mortgaged or sold corporate assets, misused corporate earnings, and wasted corporate assets. Jon and Frances denied the allegations. At trial, Troy and Carol entered as evidence pleadings from other actions against Jon and Frances and introduced no objective evidence of current conduct by Jon or Frances. What standard of misconduct did the court require Troy and Carol to prove in order to remove Jon and Frances? Did the court find they had proved their case?

Johnson and Wilson were the principal shareholders in Matthew Corporation, located in the city of Jonesville, Wisconsin. This corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing paper novelties, which were sold over a wide area in the Midwest. The corporation was also in the business of binding books. Johnson purchased Wilson’s shares of the Matthew Corporation, and in consideration thereof, Wilson agreed that for a period of two years he would not (a) manufacture or sell in Wisconsin any paper novelties of any kind that would compete with those sold by the Matthew Corporation or (b) engage in the bookbinding business in the city of Jonesville. Discuss the validity and effect, if any, of this agreement.

Hutchins and O’Neil, as general partners in the Haddon View Investment Co., became limited partners in Car Wash Investments. The general partner in Car Wash was the Minit Man Development Company. Coopers and Lybrand accountants handled the accounting work for both Minit Man and Car Wash. They performed audits and prepared financial statements that allegedly revealed two healthy companies. Nevertheless, both Car Wash and Minit Man went out of business. As a result, Hutchins and O’Neil lost a total of $252,000. They sued Coopers and Lybrand, alleging malpractice, breach of contract, concealment, fraud, and deceit in the accountants’ work for Car Wash and Minit Man. Coopers and Lybrand argued that Hutchins and O’Neil could not sue the firm because Car Wash and Minit Man were the clients, not Hutchins and O’Neil. Were the accountants correct?