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 14, Problem 19CP
Summary Introduction
Case summary:
Person C, a minor bought a used car from person K for $9,950 by falsely representing that he was over the age of maturity. Two months after purchase, person C disaffirmed the contract and returned the car to person K and sued person K for recovering his payments. Person K counter-sued that he needed to be compensated for the damages of the car due to false representation of age by person C. Court calculated a salvage value of the car to be $ 3392.20 and ordered person K to pay the remaining difference of $6557.80 to person C.
To discuss: Whether court’s decision is right.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Matthew and Joe were roommates. When they were renting their apartment, each agreed to pay half of the cost of the rent and the cable and electric bills. Two months after moving in, Matthew borrowed Joe's car and was involved in an accident. Matthew promised to pay $2,200 in damages if Joe promised not to file a claim with his insurance company. Joe agreed. However, Matthew never paid him for the damages. He claimed that the agreement was not enforceable because there was no consideration. What is the outcome?
Rubric
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?
Stein, 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?
Chapter 14 Solutions
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Ch. 14 - Prob. 1COCh. 14 - Prob. 2COCh. 14 - Prob. 3COCh. 14 - Prob. 4COCh. 14 - Prob. 5COCh. 14 - Prob. 1QCh. 14 - Prob. 2QCh. 14 - Prob. 3QCh. 14 - Prob. 4QCh. 14 - Prob. 5Q
Ch. 14 - Prob. 6QCh. 14 - Prob. 7QCh. 14 - Prob. 8QCh. 14 - Prob. 9QCh. 14 - Prob. 10CPCh. 14 - Prob. 11CPCh. 14 - Prob. 12CPCh. 14 - Prob. 13CPCh. 14 - Prob. 14CPCh. 14 - Prob. 15CPCh. 14 - Prob. 16CPCh. 14 - Prob. 17CPCh. 14 - Prob. 18CPCh. 14 - Prob. 19CPCh. 14 - Prob. 20CPCh. 14 - Prob. 21CPCh. 14 - Prob. 22CPCh. 14 - Prob. 1TSCh. 14 - Prob. 2TSCh. 14 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
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.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_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_forward
- Mark Bradshaw, an agent for National Foundation Life Insurance Co. (NFLIC), tried to sell a health insurance policy to Bobby Reed. Bradshaw told Reed that his health insurance coverage would begin upon signing some forms and paying the first premium. On January 7, Reed signed but did not read the forms, which included language stating that Reed understood that Bradshaw could not change any NFLIC policy or make any policy effective, that the policy would not be effective until actually issued by NFLIC, and that it could take up to two weeks for Reed’s application to be processed and the policy issued. NFLIC received Reed’s application, including his payment for the first premium, on January 12. On January 19, NFLIC called Reed’s home and was informed he had a heart attack on January 15. NFLIC declined to issue the policy to Reed. On what grounds did Reed sue Bradshaw? Was Reed’s suit against Bradshaw successful?arrow_forwardSharon contracted with Jane, a shirtmaker, for one thousand shirts for men. Jane manufactured and delivered five hundred shirts, which were paid for by Sharon. At the same time, Sharon notified Jane that she could not use or dispose of the other five hundred shirts and directed Jane not to manufacture any more under the contract. Nevertheless, Jane proceeded to make up the other five hundred shirts and tendered them to Sharon. Sharon refused to accept the shirts, and Jane then sued for the purchase price. Is she entitled to the purchase price? If not, is she entitled to any damages? Explain.arrow_forwardGreen was the owner of a large department store. On Wednesday, January 26, he talked to Smith and said, “I will hire you as sales manager in my store for one year at a salary of $48,000; you are to begin work next Monday.” Smith accepted and started work on Monday, January 31. At the end of three months, Green discharged Smith. On May 15, Smith brings an action against Green to recover the unpaid portion of the $28,000 salary. Is Smith’s employment contract enforceable? Explain.arrow_forward
- Joseph Eugene Dodson, age sixteen, purchased a used pickup truck from Burns and Mary Shrader. The Shraders owned and operated Shrader’s Auto Sales. Dodson paid $14,900 in cash for the truck. At the time of sale, the Shraders did not question Dodson’s age, but thought he was eighteen or nineteen. Dodson made no misrepresentation concerning his age. Nine months after the date of purchase, the truck began to develop mechanical problems. A mechanic diagnosed the problem as a burnt valve but could not be certain. Dodson, who could not afford the repairs, continued to drive the truck until one month later, when the engine “blew up.” Dodson parked the vehicle in the front yard of his parents’ home and contacted the Shraders to rescind the purchase of the truck and to request a full refund. a. What arguments would support Dodson’s termination of the contract? b. What arguments would support Shrader’s position that the contract is not voidable? c. Which side should prevail? Explain.arrow_forwardMichael, a minor, operates a one-man automobile repair shop. Anderson, having heard of Michael’s good work on other cars, takes her car to Michael’s shop for a thorough engine overhaul. Michael, while overhauling Anderson’s engine, carelessly fits an unsuitable piston ring on one of the pistons, with the result that Anderson’s engine is seriously damaged. Michael offers to return the sum that Anderson paid him for his work, but refusesto pay for the damage. Can Anderson recover from Michael in tort for the damage to her engine? Why or why not?arrow_forwardColumbia 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_forward
- Miguel, 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_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_forwardIn 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_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