Accounting
Anthropology
Archaeology
Art History
Banking
Biology & Life Science
Business
Business Communication
Business Development
Business Ethics
Business Law
Chemistry
Communication
Computer Science
Counseling
Criminal Law
Curriculum & Instruction
Design
Earth Science
Economic
Education
Engineering
Finance
History & Theory
Humanities
Human Resource
International Business
Investments & Securities
Journalism
Law
Management
Marketing
Medicine
Medicine & Health Science
Nursing
Philosophy
Physic
Psychology
Real Estate
Science
Social Science
Sociology
Special Education
Speech
Visual Arts
Question
Baker Furniture sold 50 living room sets to King's Department Store. The parties did not agree on passage of title, but the delivery term was F.O.B. place of shipment. Discuss title and risk of loss regarding the furniture.Answer
This answer is hidden. It contains 280 characters.
Related questions
Q:
If the buyer rejected the goods, the seller may reasonably resell them and obtain the difference between the resale price and the contract price.
Q:
Courts generally declare illegal agreements whereby parties limit the effect of the perfect tender rule.
Q:
Tender means to make conforming goods available to the buyer.
Q:
The plaintiff, Donald Laird (Laird) has a bachelor of science degree in animal science from the University of Nebraska, had previously been employed at the university's swine research center, had managed a feed mill in North Platte, had been employed as a herdsman for Hog Breeders, Incorporated, had worked for five years for Armour & Company at its feeder pig operations, and was a branch manager of the Scribner Co-op, Inc. (Co-op) for 14 years, until February 1986. Laird's assistant manager while at the Co-op was Gary Ruwe. When Laird quit the Co-op, Ruwe became the manager. In March 1986, Laird went to Co-op to purchase some feed ingredients for his hogs. In speaking with Ruwe, Laird learned that the Co-op grain bin was not operating properly and therefore the corn was not drying properly. If the corn does not dry properly, it can collect mold and insects. Laird said he would take 1300 bushels of corn if Ruwe could pull the corn out of the middle of the grain bin. The corn was delivered to Laird where he noticed some damaged corn and an odor that indicated that the corn may have mold. Laird did not reject the shipment, however. Laird then began to feed the corn to his hogs. The boars began to develop pneumonia, began vomiting, and would not eat regularly. When it was time for the sows to farrow, the sows had an abnormally high number of miscarriages and stillborns. The ultimate conclusion was that the corn delivered was tainted with vomitoxins, a toxic substance that made the corn unmarketable as feed. Laird sued the Co-op for breach of the implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability. In order to recover under the warranty of fitness for a particular purpose what does Laird have to prove? What is the implied warranty of merchantability? Does Laird have a successful claim with this warranty?
Q:
Kyle is the owner of a motorcycle company. His tire supplier having gone out of business, he asked several tire manufacturers for samples. He selected one manufacturer, based on the quality of the rubber, the tread depth and the price, and ordered 1000 tires. When he received his order, he found that the quality did not match that of the sample. In particular, the tread depth was much lesser than that of the sample. What recourse does Kyle have?
Q:
In order to disclaim a warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, a merchant:
a. need do nothing; such a warranty will not exist unless the merchant intends to create the warranty.
b. must make the disclaimer orally and directly to the buyer.
c. may disclaim the warranty with any language that is clear and conspicuous.
d. None of the above. Implied warranties cannot be disclaimed.
Q:
Daddy buys an electric car for his 10-year-old son. Daddy follows the directions for assembly carefully, but the son gets an injuring shock when he sits in the car. If Daddy and son sue the manufacturer for negligence, they will:
a. be successful only if they can prove that the car manufacturer knew of the defect and failed to correct it.
b. be successful only if they can prove that the car manufacturer failed to use reasonable care in designing, manufacturing, or warning the purchasers about intended uses and foreseeable misuses.
c. lose, because the son has no privity of contract and therefore no standing to sue.
d. not be successful if the car was sold "ASIS."
Q:
Crytrin Manufacturing, Inc. contracted with Molfrey, Inc. to manufacture three large pieces of equipment. The contract contained a clause stating that Crytrin agreed to repair or replace any defective equipment, but that was the only remedy Molfry would have. This clause:
a. is an effective disclaimer.
b. will not keep Molfry from obtaining consequential damages since, under the UCC, consequential damages cannot be excluded.
c. is a limitation of remedy clause, which limits or excludes normal remedies permitted under the Code.
d. limits any express warranties made by Crytrin.
Q:
The statute of limitations for breach of warranty under the UCC is?
a. thirty days.
b. one year.
c. four years.
d. unlimited.
Q:
Mark, a power tool salesman, promises Jill, a customer, that the Turbo Power Hedge Trimmer 1000 will easily cut through bamboo up to 3 inches thick. Mark's statement constitutes an express warranty if Jill purchases the hedge trimmer.
Q:
An express warranty may be created by a sample.
Q:
In the case Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., the Court ruled that Wendy's breached the implied warranty of merchantability as its hamburgers were unfit for their ordinary purpose.
Q:
A product liability case may be brought in warranty, negligence, or strict liability, but it must have the element that a person or business has been hurt by goods.
Q:
Which of the following statements about the good faith purchaser is correct?
a. He is also known as the bona fide purchaser.
b. He gave value for the goods.
c. He may acquire good title from a seller with voidable title.
d. All of the above.
Q:
In the case Harmon v. Dunn, the court addressed the issue of:
a. The passing of risk of loss in case of the sale of a stolen good.
b. The passing of risk of loss in case of breach of contract.
c. The passing of risk of loss when there is no breach of contract and the goods are held by a bailee.
d. The passing of risk of loss in case of death of the bailee.
Q:
On impulse, you purchase a travel trailer and ask your acquaintance, Max, if you can leave the trailer at the edge of his restaurant's parking lot until you can have a concrete pad built to store the trailer on your property. Max agrees. When you return for the trailer the next week, it is gone and you find out that Max sold it. You can:
a. recover the trailer because Max did not have any ownership interest to pass.
b. recover, but only if Max bought insurance to cover the trailer while it was on his property.
c. not recover because you "entrusted" the trailer to Max, who then had a right to sell it.
d. not recover because Max had only a voidable title to transfer.
Q:
Which of the following statements about sale on approval is correct? Marco sells goods to Byron for his personal use on the basis that the goods may be returned if Byron is not satisfied with them.
a. The buyer has the right to return the goods to the seller provided he intended to use them himself.
b. The goods are not subject to the buyer's creditors until the buyer accepts them.
c. There is no sale until the buyer accepts the goods.
d. All of the above.
Q:
The Grand Hotel of Jonesville, Kentucky, purchased 200 chairs from Holton Furniture, whose business is in Minnesota. The purchase order included the following term: "F.O.B. Minneapolis, MN." The contract makes no mention of risk of loss or title. The contract can be described as a:
a. shipment contract.
b. destination contract.
c. sale or return..
d. sale on approval.
Q:
Marco Manufacturing contracted to sell Kurtz Industries 3,000 iron clasps. The contract specified: F.O.B. Kurtz Industries. Upon arrival and inspection, the goods were rejected by Kurtz Industries because they did not conform to the contract specifications. In transit back to Marco Manufacturing, the common carrier's truck overturned and completely destroyed the clasps. Which statement is correct?
a. Marco may sue Kurtz for the contract price, as risk of loss transferred to Kurtz at the F.O.B. point.
b. Kurtz will not be liable for the purchase price. The risk of loss had not yet transferred since the goods were nonconforming.
c. The loss will be split between the parties upon a 50/50 basis.
d. The loss will be assigned to the party who could best bear the loss.
Q:
Buyer is located in Des Moines, Iowa and seller is located in Sacramento, California. The contract specifies F.O.B. Des Moines. This contract is a:
a. destination contract.
b. sale or return.
c. shipment contract.
d. sale on approval.
Q:
Under the UCC, the party who has title to the goods always has the risk of loss.
Q:
Which of the following types of contracts cannot be either contradicted or supplemented by evidence of prior agreements or expressions?
a. Totally integrated contracts.
b. Incomplete contracts.
c. Ambiguous contracts.
d. All of the above.
Q:
Derek and Abyan were discussing business over lunch when they agreed on the sale of a five-acre parcel of land. Since neither of them had any paper with them, Derek wrote the following on a napkin: "Abyan agrees to purchase from Derek a 5-acre parcel located at the local address of 123 105th Street, St. Joseph, Minnesota, U.S.A. for the price of $4,500 per acre. Transfer of title, payment, and possession to take place on May 1, 2008." Abyan signed the napkin. On May 1, 2008, Derek was ready to close the deal and transfer title but Abyan refused to pay the purchase price. If Derek sues Abyan for the price of the land, the most likely result will be:
a. Abyan will win because the writing is not sufficient under the statute of frauds.
b. Derek will win because the writing is sufficient under the statute of frauds.
c. Abyan will win because Derek did not sign the writing.
d. Derek will win because the statute of frauds does not apply to this situation.
Q:
For statute of frauds purposes, an interest in land includes:
a. a house.
b. a real estate mortgage.
c. an easement.
d. All of the above.
Q:
Under the statute of frauds, the writing must: be signed by the defendant; and must state with reasonable certainty the name of each party, the subject matter of the agreement, and all of the essential terms and promises.
Q:
Which of the following is NOT a true statement about fraud?
a. The plaintiff must prove that the defendant has knowledge of the falsity of his or her statement.
b. It is necessary for the plaintiff to show that he or she has suffered some type of detriment or injury because of his or her reasonable reliance on the defendant's false statement.
c. The defendant made the statement with the intent to induce the plaintiff to enter into the contract.
d. The plaintiff must show that although the defendant acted in good faith, the statement was material because the defendant expected the plaintiff to rely on it and enter into the contract.
Q:
Which of the following situations may render a contract voidable?
a. A mistake made by both parties.
b. A party was unduly influenced by the other.
c. A party signed the contract under duress.
d. All of the above.
Q:
Which of the following is least likely to be regarded as a necessary?
a. Rent.
b. Food.
c. Medical expenses.
d. Educational expenses.
Q:
Pamela is planning to sell her home decorating store to her daughter. Pamela has:
a. a greater duty to reveal problems in the business because her daughter assumes she will be honest.
b. no duty to disclose hidden defects in the business.
c. a lesser duty to reveal problems in the business because she has a relationship of trust with the buyer.
d. a duty to report only any latent defects she knows about that her daughter should not be expected to discover herself.
Q:
Both fraudulent AND innocent, misrepresentation permit the injured party to rescind a contract.