Person H sold person J a used automobile for $21,552 of which $20,402 was financed with a note and security agreement. Person J has represented that she was twenty one while she was actually twenty at the time of entering the contract. J gave the car to person R for using it. But, person R did not return the car. Person J stopped making the payments for the car saying that she was a minor when she entered into the contract. Person H sued to recover the money. To discuss: Whether person H can recover the money from person J.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 14, Problem 15CP

Summary Introduction

Case summary:

Person H sold person J a used automobile for $21,552 of which $20,402 was financed with a note and security agreement. Person J has represented that she was twenty one while she was actually twenty at the time of entering the contract. J gave the car to person R for using it. But, person R did not return the car. Person J stopped making the payments for the car saying that she was a minor when she entered into the contract. Person H sued to recover the money.

To discuss: Whether person H can recover the money from person J.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Abigail is in the business of selling fine antiques. Abigail purchased an antique desk for $5,000 from Jackson, and gave a promissory note for payment. Concerned that Jackson might not accept the note, Abigail had her friend Catalina sign the promissory note as well. Jackson accepted the note as payment. Two weeks later, Jackson sought payment on the note. Abigail told Jackson that she is not responsible for the promissory note because Catalina signed the note too, and Jackson had to seek payment from Catalina first. Abigail also spotted a beautiful set of vintage chairs owned by Max that would be perfect for her store. Abigail wrote a $10,000 check, also signed by her business associate Orville as an accommodation party, to Max to pay for the chairs. Max presented the check to Westville Savings, the bank where Abigail has a checking account, for payment. Westville Savings dishonored the check claiming Abigail had insufficient funds. Who is liable for these negotiable…

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…

On June 11, Chagnon bought a used Buick from Keser for $9,950. Chagnon, who was then a minor, obtained the contract by falsely advising Keser that he was over the age of majority. On September 25, two months and four days after reaching his majority, Chagnon disaffirmed the contract and, ten days later, returned the Buick to Keser. He then brought suit to recover the money he had paid for the automobile. Keser counterclaimed that he suffered damages as the direct result of Chagnon’s false representation of his age. A trial was brought to the court, sitting without a jury, all of which culminated in a judgment in favor of Chagnon against Keser in the sum of $6,557.80. This particular sum was arrived at by the trial court in the following manner: the trial court found that Chagnon initially purchased the Buick for the sum of $9,950 and that he was entitled to the return of his $9,950; and then, by way of setoff, the trial court subtracted from the $9,950 the sum of $3,392.20, apparently…