Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
17th Edition
ISBN: 9781337094757
Author: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 11, Problem 5Q
Summary Introduction
To discuss: The outcome of the given contract.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Peter Andrus owned an apartment building that he had insured under a fire insurance policy sold by J.C. Durick Insurance (Durick). Two months prior to the expiration of the policy, Durick notified Andrus that the building should be insured for $48,000 (or 80 percent of the building’s value), as required by the insurance company. Andrus replied that (1) he wanted insurance to match the amount of the outstanding mortgage on the building (i.e., $24,000) and (2) if Durick could not sell this insurance, he would go elsewhere. Durick sent a new insurance policy in the face amount of $48,000 with the notation that the policy was automatically accepted unless Andrus notified him to the contrary. Andrus did not reply. However, he did not pay the premiums on the policy. Durick sued Andrus to recover these premiums.
Discuss who wins? Provide justification for your argument/position.
Anne Robertson obtained telescopes from the See-Well Optics Company at dealer prices on the pretense of being a dealer in optical equipment. See-Well later determined that Robertson was not, had never been, and did not plan to be a dealer in optics. By the time these facts emerged, Robertson had succeeded in selling the telescopes to several individuals located throughout the country. These buyers had responded to advertisements placed by Robertson, who again had represented herself as a dealer in optical equipment. The buyers had purchased the telescopes in good faith at prices consistent with comparable equipment. See-Well located these buyers and demanded that the telescopes be returned as property obtained through fraud. Do the buyers of these telescopes have to return their purchases?
Peters paid Davis $1000 for carpeting which was installed in Peter's home on March 1, 1974. Peters immediately
noticed a defect in the carpets and notified Davis. Davis's employees attempted several times to fix the carpets
but were unsuccessful. On May 1, Peter wrote Davis and rejected the carpet demanding a full refund of the
purchase price. Davis failed to remove the carpet. What will be the result?
Chapter 11 Solutions
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Ch. 11 - Prob. 1COCh. 11 - Prob. 2COCh. 11 - Prob. 3COCh. 11 - Prob. 4COCh. 11 - Prob. 5COCh. 11 - Prob. 1QCh. 11 - Prob. 2QCh. 11 - Prob. 3QCh. 11 - Prob. 4QCh. 11 - Prob. 5Q
Ch. 11 - Prob. 6QCh. 11 - Prob. 7QCh. 11 - Prob. 8QCh. 11 - Prob. 9QCh. 11 - Prob. 10CPCh. 11 - Prob. 11CPCh. 11 - Prob. 12CPCh. 11 - Prob. 13CPCh. 11 - Prob. 14CPCh. 11 - Prob. 15CPCh. 11 - Prob. 16CPCh. 11 - Prob. 17CPCh. 11 - Prob. 18CPCh. 11 - Prob. 19CPCh. 11 - Prob. 20CPCh. 11 - Prob. 21CPCh. 11 - Prob. 22CPCh. 11 - Prob. 23CPCh. 11 - Prob. 1TSCh. 11 - Prob. 2TSCh. 11 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- David E. Ross, his two brothers, and their families operated and owned the entire stock of five businesses. Ross had three children: Rod, David II, and Betsy. David II and Betsy were not involved in the operation of the companies, but Rod began working for one of the firms, Equitable Life and Casualty Insurance Company, in 2007. Between 2009 and 2013, the elder Ross informed a number of persons of his desire to reward Rod for his work with Equitable Life by giving him stock in addition to the stock he would inherit. He subsequently executed several stock transfers to Rod, representing shares in various family businesses, which were reflected by appropriate entries on the corporate books. Certificates were issued in Rod’s name and placed in an envelope identified with the name Rod Ross, but they were kept with the other family stock certificates in an office safe to which Rod did not have access. In all, one-fourth of the stock holdings of David E. Ross were transferred to Rod in this…arrow_forwardswiper 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_forwardOn March 17, Peckham bought a new car from Larsen Chevrolet for $16,400. During the first one and one-half months after the purchase, Peckham discovered that the car’s hood was dented, its gas tank contained no baffles, its emergency brake was inoperable, the car did not have a jack or a spare tire, and neither the clock nor the speedometer worked. Larsen claimed that Peckham knew of the defects at the time of the purchase. Peckham, on the other hand, claimed that he did not know the extent of the defects and that despite his repeated efforts the defects were not repaired until June 11. Then, on July 15, the car’s dashboard caught fire, leaving the car’s interior damaged and the car itself inoperable. Peckham then returned to Larsen Chevrolet and told Larsen that he had to repair the car at his own expense or that he, Peckham, would either rescind the contract or demand a new automobile. Peckham also claimed that at the end of their conversation he notified Larsen Chevrolet that he was…arrow_forward
- Aaron bought a television set for personal use from Penny. Aaron properly signed a security agreement and paid Penny $125 down, as their agreement required. Penny did not file, and subsequently Aaron sold the television for $800 to Clark, his neighbor, for use in Clark’s hotel lobby. a. When Aaron fails to make the January and February payments, may Penny repossess the television from Clark? b. What if, instead of Aaron’s selling the television set to Clark, a judgment creditor levied (sought possession) on the television? Who would prevail? c. What if Clark intended to use the television set in his home? Who would prevail?arrow_forwardMiguel, a 16-year old mechanic’s apprentice, borrowed $3,000 from his next door neighbour, Jono, by telling him that he was 20 years old and had a good, stable income. The loan was payable in three equal fortnightly payments. After the first payment, Miguel stopped paying Jono. Jono wanted to bring a legal action against Miguel but when he discovered his real age, he decided instead to initiate an action in tort for deceit against the latter. Will Jono likely be successful in his action in tort for deceit against Miguel? Explain please.arrow_forwardGaby Gonzalez obtained two CDs at second Federal savings and Loan association (second) with her daughter, Juana Martinez, as beneficiary. right before Gonzalez died, she told her cousin, rafael Gonzalez, where to find her CDs. The CDs had a line through Martinez’s name and rafael Gonzalez’s name added in the section for beneficiary with the notation, “revised beneficiary . . . rc” after Gaby’s death, rafael withdrew some funds to pay funeral expenses and legal fees from one of the CDs. several years later, Rafael discovered that second had paid the CDs to Hector Gonzalez, who was the administrator of Martinez’s estate. Rafael sued second, claiming as the beneficiary that it should have paid him. who was entitled to the proceeds of the CDs?arrow_forward
- Columbia University brought suit against Jacobsen on two notes signed by him and his parents. The notes represented the balance of tuition he owed the University. Jacobsen counterclaimed for money damages due to Columbia’s deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation. Jacobsen argues that Columbia fraudulently misrepresented that it would teach wisdom, truth, character, enlightenment, and similar virtues and qualities. He specifically cites as support the Columbia motto: “in lumine tuo videbimus lumen” (“In your light we shall see light”); the inscription over the college chapel: “Wisdom dwelleth in the heart of him that hath understanding”; and various excerpts from its brochures, catalogues, and a convocation address made by the University’s president. Jacobsen, a senior who was not graduated because of poor scholastic standing, claims that the University’s failure to meet its promises made through these quotations constituted fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit. Decision?arrow_forwardLeonard Wolfe was killed in an automobile accident while driving his Toyota Camry. The car was rendered a total loss, and Wolfe’s insurance carrier paid his estate $18,550 for damage to the vehicle. Under the terms of Wolfe’s will, any car owned at his death was to be given to his brother, David. Wolfe’s daughter, Carol, however, brought an action, claiming that the gift of the car to David was adeemed by its total destruction and that she, as the residuary legatee under the will, was entitled to the insurance proceeds. Who is entitled to the insurance proceeds?arrow_forwardSmith was approached by a man who introduced himself as Brown of Brown & Co. Brown was not known to Smith, but Smith asked Dun & Bradstreet for a credit report and obtained a very favorable report on Brown. He thereupon sold Brown some expensive gems and billed Brown & Co. “Brown” turned out to be a clever jewel thief, who later sold the gems to Brown & Co. for valuable consideration. Brown & Co. was unaware of “Brown’s” transaction with Smith. Can Smith successfully sue Brown & Co. for either the return of the gems or the price as billed to Brown & Co.?arrow_forward
- An agent is NOT personally liable on a contract made with a third party when: 1) neither the existence, nor the name of the principal is known to the third party. 2) the name and existence of the principal are known to the third party. 3) the agent makes the contract with the third party in his/her personal capacity as a co-signor or obligor with the principal. 4) the existence, but not the name of the principal is known to the third party.arrow_forwardStein, a mechanic, and Beal, a life insurance agent, entered into a written contract for the sale of Stein’s tractor to Beal for $6,800 cash. It was agreed that Stein would tune the motor on the tractor. Stein fulfilled this obligation and on the night of July 1 telephoned Beal that the tractor was ready to be picked up upon Beal’s making payment. Beal responded, “I’ll be there in the morning with the money.” On the next morning, however, Beal was approached by an insurance prospect and decided to get the tractor at a later date. On the night of .July 2, the tractor was destroyed by fire of unknown origin. Neither Stein nor Beal had any fire insurance. Who must bear the loss? Why?arrow_forwardwilliam purchased a 10-year renewable and convertible term insurance policy with an effective date of March 1, 2014 and a 2-year sulcide exclusion clause. In the following year. William subsequently exercises his conversion privilege anc obtains a term-to-100 policy with a policy effective date of Feb 1, 2015. Which of the following stätements CORRECTLY describes the suicide and contestability timeframes of William's term-to-100 policy? sulcide exclusion clause expires on March 1. 2016: Contestability period expires March 1, 2016 Sulcide exclusion clause expires on Feb 1. 2017: Contestability period expires March 1. 2016 Suicide exclusion elause expires on March 1, 2016, Contestability perlod expires Feb 1. 2017 Sulcide exclusion clause expires on Feb 1. 2017: Contestability perod expires Feb 1, 2017 16arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...ManagementISBN:9781305947412Author:Cliff RagsdalePublisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...ManagementISBN:9780135191798Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. LaudonPublisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134237473Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De CenzoPublisher:PEARSON
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134527604
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...
Management
ISBN:9781305947412
Author:Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...
Management
ISBN:9780135191798
Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...
Management
ISBN:9780134728391
Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134237473
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:PEARSON