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 12, Problem 4Q
Summary Introduction
To discuss: Whether person M recover the $600 from person G.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Barnes accepted Clark’s offer to sell to him a portion of Clark’s coin collection. Clark forgot that his prized $20 gold piece at the time of the offer and acceptance was included in the portion that he offered to sell to Barnes. Clark did not intend to include the gold piece in the sale. Barnes, at the time of inspecting the offered portion of the collection and prior to accepting the offer, saw the gold piece. Is Barnes entitled to the $20 gold piece? Explain
On February 18, Clancy, who was in debt, took his stereo to Lucy’s repair shop. Because Lucy and Clancy were old friends, Lucy didn’t give him a receipt. On February 19, hounded by creditors, Clancy sold the stereo on credit to Grover, who was to pick it up on February 21 at Lucy’s, pay Lucy the repair bill, and pay the balance of the purchase price to Clancy. Who is entitled to the radio if, on February 20, Clancy’s creditor appears with the sheriff to seize the stereo from Lucy? Why?
Corbin was named as executor of his father's will. While going through his late father's papers, he discovered a promissory note made by Fulsom in the amount of $10,000 that reflected a personal loan the decedent had made before he died. Corbin approached Fulsom and indicated that he would accept $5,000 cash in exchange for the note. Fulsom's payment was not included in the assets of the estate. One of the heirs discovered the cash payment and brought suit, charging misconduct. Will Corbin be required to cover the losss suffered by the estate?
Chapter 12 Solutions
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Ch. 12 - Prob. 1COCh. 12 - Prob. 2COCh. 12 - Prob. 3COCh. 12 - Prob. 4COCh. 12 - Prob. 5COCh. 12 - Prob. 1QCh. 12 - Prob. 2QCh. 12 - Prob. 3QCh. 12 - Prob. 4QCh. 12 - Prob. 5Q
Ch. 12 - Prob. 6QCh. 12 - Prob. 7QCh. 12 - Prob. 8QCh. 12 - Prob. 9QCh. 12 - Prob. 10QCh. 12 - Prob. 11QCh. 12 - Prob. 12CPCh. 12 - Prob. 13CPCh. 12 - Prob. 14CPCh. 12 - Prob. 15CPCh. 12 - Prob. 16CPCh. 12 - Prob. 17CPCh. 12 - Prob. 18CPCh. 12 - Prob. 19CPCh. 12 - Prob. 20CPCh. 12 - Prob. 1TSCh. 12 - Prob. 2TSCh. 12 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- The H owned and operated a successful small bakery and grocery store. They spoke with L, an agent of Red Owl Stores, who told them that for $18,000, Red Owl would build a store and fully stock it for them. The H sold their bakery and grocery store and purchased a lot on which Red Owl was to build the store. L then told H that the price had gone up to $26,000. The H borrowed the extra money from relatives, but then L informed them that the cost would be $34,000. Negotiations broke off and the H sued. Can H win the case? Explain.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_forwardDavid 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_forward
- 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.arrow_forwardAn 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_forwardExecutive Financial Services, Inc. (EFS), purchased three tractors from Tri-County Farm Company (Tri-County), a John Deere dealership owned by Gene Mohr and James Loyd. The tractors cost $48,000, $19,000, and $38,000. EFS did not take possession of the tractors but instead left the tractors on Tri-County’s lot. EFS leased the tractors to Mohr-Loyd Leasing (Mohr-Loyd), a partnership between Mohr and Loyd, with the understanding and representation by Mohr-Loyd that the tractors would be leased out to farmers. Instead of leasing the tractors, Tri-County sold them to three different farmers. EFS sued and obtained judgment against Tri-County, Mohr-Loyd, and Mohr and Loyd personally for breach of contract. Because that judgment remained unsatisfied, EFS sued the three farmers who bought the tractors to recover the tractors from them. a) What does the entrustment rule provide? Explain. b) Did Mohr and Loyd act ethically in this case? c) Who owns the tractors, EFS or the farmers?arrow_forward
- Johnson, who owned a hardware store, was indebted to Hutchinson, one of her suppliers. Johnson sold her business to Lockhart, one of Johnson’s previous competitors, who combined the inventory from Johnson’s store with his own and moved them to a new, larger store. Hutchinson claims that Lockhart must pay Johnson’s debt because the sale of the business had been made without complying with the requirements of the bulk sales law. Discuss whether Lockhart is obligated to pay Hutchison’s debt to Johnson.arrow_forwardMr. A wrote and mailed to Mr. B offering to sell his truck worth $10,500.00. In response, Mr. B replied by mail with a counteroffer of $8,000.00. Days later, Mr. B wrote again to Mr. A and said that he accepted the offer of $10,500.00 and the letter reached to Mr. A. Though there was an acceptance to the offer, but Mr. A decided to sell his truck to other interested party. 1. Is there a binding contract between Mr. A & B? If yes or no, please support your statement.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_forward
- In August, Victoria Air Conditioning, Inc. (VAC), entered into a subcontract for insulation services with Southwest Texas Mechanical Insulation Company (SWT), a partnership comprising Charlie Jupe and Tommy Nabors. In February of the following year, Jupe and Nabors dissolved the partnership, but VAC did not receive notice of the dissolution at that time. Sometime later, insulation was removed from Nabors’s premises to Jupe’s possession and Jupe continued the insulation project with VAC. From then on, Nabors had no more involvement with SWT. One month later, Nabors informed VAC’s project manager, Von Behrenfeld, that Nabors was no longer associated with SWT, had formed his own insulation company, and was interested in bidding on new jobs. Subsequently, SWT failed to perform the subcontract and Jupe could not be found. VAC brought suit for breach of contract against SWT, Jupe, and Nabors. Nabors claims that several letters and change orders introduced by both parties show that VAC knew…arrow_forwardWilson engages Ruth to sell Wilson’s antique walnut chest to Harold for $2,500. The next day, Ruth learns that Sandy is willing to pay $3,000 for Wilson’s chest. Ruth nevertheless sells the chest to Harold. Wilson then discovers these facts. What are Wilson’s rights, if any, against Ruth?arrow_forwardSmith, having contracted to sell to Beyer thirty tons of described fertilizer, shipped to Beyer by carrier thirty tons of fertilizer, which he stated conformed to the contract. Nothing was stated in the contract as to time of payment, but Smith demanded payment as a condition of handing over the fertilizer to Beyer. Beyer refused to pay unless he was given the opportunity to inspect the fertilizer. Who is correct? Explain.arrow_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