In considering the issue of Martin’s recovery of his 1966 Pontiac GTO, your discussion post indicated that the purchaser of the vehicle from the used car dealer was entitled to reimbursement based on a purchase in good faith; therefore, the courts would need to determine how to rightfully reimburse both Martin and the purchaser. Based on North Carolina statutes on good faith purchases, the case for the purchaser’s refusal to release the car to Martin and his path toward reimbursement becomes quite murky. According to North Carolina General Statute § 25-2-403 (2016), purchasing in good faith can only give to the buyer the seller’s interest to the extent that the seller rightfully possesses the item. Since Benjamin did not hold the title …show more content…
In this case, Martin made a police report at the time of discovery of the theft of his automobile, which would suggest that pursuant to North Carolina General Statute § 20-102 (2016), the police department would have notified the Division of Motor Vehicles, which would have listed the stolen vehicle and suspended the registration of the car (N.C.G.S. § 20-104, 2016). When Benjamin brought the automobile in to trade, the Kinston used car dealer needed to require a title, and this vehicle identification number should have been checked with the registry at the Division of Motor Vehicles for the dealership to avoid any guilt of receiving or transferring stolen goods, which is punishable as a Class H felony (N.C.G.S. § 20-106, 2016). In State v. Rook (1975), Judge Martin specifically addresses the imprecision of the wording in N.C.G.S. § 20-106 (2016) regarding dealing in goods one might reasonably believe are stolen by ruling that this statute’s vagueness is necessary as a warning for all to take care in their conduct in trade arrangements. This law is based on biblical teaching, as Levitical law instructs that a person who knows of wrong and withholds this information is considered in God’s eyes as guilty as the one who did the sinful act (Clarke,
When doing an evaluation of any case, you should always look at all the relevant facts and issues involved before jumping to conclusions. As for this case, Mike Thurmond, the operator of Top Quality Auto Sales, a used car dealership, has financed his dealerships inventory of vehicles by creating a financing arrangement with Indianapolis Car Exchange (ICE). ICE then filed a financing statement that listed Top Quality’s inventory as collateral for the financing. After this, Top Quality sold a Ford truck to Bonnie Chrisman, who was also a used car dealer. Chrisman paid Top Quality for the truck and then proceeded to sell it Randall and Christina Alderson, who paid Chrisman for the vehicle. In
materials.) A vendor is not an owner if it did not own the property at the time
This case study examines various real estate contracts – the Real Estate Purchase Contract (REPC) and two addendums labeled Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 – pertaining to the sale of 1234 Cul-de-sac Lane in Orem, Utah. The buyers in this contract are 17 year old Jon D’Man and 21 year old Marsha Mello; the seller is Boren T. Deal. The first contract created was Jon and Marsha’s offer to purchase Boren’s house. This contract was created using the RESC form, which was likely provided by their real estate agent as it is the required form for real estate transactions according to Utah state law. The seller originally listed the house on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS); Jon and Marsha agreed that the asking price was too high for the neighborhood (although we are not given the actual listing price), and agreed to offer two-hundred and seven-thousand dollars ($207,000) and an Earnest Money Deposit of five-thousand dollars ($5,000). Additionally, the buyers requested that the seller pay 3% which includes the title insurance and property taxes. After the REPC form was drafted, the two addendums were created. Addendum No. 1 is from the seller back to the buyer, and Addendum No. 2 is the buyer’s counteroffer to the seller.
Walker, Takem’s has the statutory law of contracts in his favor. In a contract, the seller and the purchaser have certain rights and obligations. Four basics must be met for a contract to be created (Chrisman, 2014). First, the offer has to be made. In the case at hand, the door-to-door salesperson made an offer of a computer to Ms. Walker. Second, the consideration has to be accepted. Ms. Walker accepted the offer to purchase a computer. The third step is capacity. The purchaser must be legally capable of entering into a contract; minors and the mentally incompetent are excluded in this case. Takem’s has given Ms. Walker the computer in exchange for her payments on her store account. Finally, the intention to enter into a contract has to be present. Ms. Walker signed a bill of sale, a security agreement, and a negotiable promissory note- which is an unconditional promise to pay a certain sum of money at a certain time in the future. Though Takem’s has the advantage to combat her claims, Tommy needs to ensure that his salespeople have not made any false statements or misrepresentations to Ms. Walker as this could have legal implications for the store and against the contract (Vaccaro, 1987). Ms. Walker is legally bound by the contract she agreed to in exchange for the computer; however if there has been any misrepresentations or false statements Ms. Walker may be able, with legal assistance, to call the contract into question
In the case of Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Australia Pty Ltd (1986), the High Court ruled that: The interpretation of an exclusion clause is to be determined by construing the clause according to its natural and ordinary meaning, read in light of the contract as a whole, thereby giving due weight to the context in which the clause appeared including the nature and object of the contract… This brings to question whether ‘loss or theft’ covers the severe water damage to Kati’s car. In the case of Thornton v Shoe Lane Parking (1971), Denning MR found that if there is an offer communicated through a sign of notice at the entry of a carpark, this offer is accepted by a customer by the ‘movement of his car’ through the entrance . By this
Aldo shipped 10 refrigerators to Rafael pursuant to a sales contract under which title to the goods and risk of loss would pass to Rafael upon delivery to Fleet Railroad. The agreed price was $5,000. When the refrigerators were delivered to Rafael, he found they were damaged. An estimate for repairing them showed it would cost up to $1,000, and an expert opinion was to the effect that they were defective when shipped. Rafael put in a claim to Aldo, which Aldo rejected. Rafael then wrote to Aldo, “I don’t like to get into a despite of this nature. I am enclosing my check for $4,000 in full payment of the shipment.” Aldo did not reply, but he cashed the check and then sued Rafael for the $1,000 balance. May he recover? Explain.
Scott Robinson moved from Houston to Cincinnati in 2007. Before leaving, Mr. Robinson sold his Hyundai Santa Fe to a used car dealer in Rosenberg, Texas. Due to clerical errors at the dealer, Scott's car was sold with his license plates still attached to the vehicle. The new owner of the vehicle ran a stoplight and when the license plate was read, Mr. Robinson's information was pulled up. When he finally received his ticket, it was too late for him to protest the charges even when providing proof of sale for the vehicle.(Geor...
California v. Carney involves a Drug Enforcement Agency Agent, Robert Williams, who was observing respondent, Charles Carney, as he approached a youth in downtown San Diego. Having received previous information that that particular motor home was being used to exchange sex for marijuana, Williams accompanied by other agents kept the motor home under surveillance (Kamisar, LaFave, Israel, King, p 260, 2002). During the time that the agent had Carney under surveillance, he saw Carney bring the youth back to his motor home, which was parked in a lot (Kamisar, et al., p 260, 2002).
The Massachusetts Lemon Law protects any used car, truck, van, or demonstration vehicle as has been defined by Massachusetts state standards. Under the Lemon Law, dealers are required to conduct any repairs that compromise the use or safety of the vehicle during the warranty period. If you caused these problems yourself, however, whether through negligence or making changes to the vehicle, then the dealer is not recovered to cover the repairs under the warranty. If the vehicle is purchased through a private part seller, then it is required that the buyers are informed of any defects that could compromised the use or safety of a
The presence of third-party registered marks alone is not enough to substantially weaken the strength of the plaintiff’s mark. Homeowners Grp., Inc. v. Home Mktg. Specialists, 931 F.2d 1100, 1108 (6th Cir. 1991). A third-party mark weakens a senior mark when the third parties “use the marks in the relevant market.” Kibler, 843 F.3d at 1076.
The court had reason that appellants may have been guilty of fraudulent conversion, or of larceny by bailee if the theory is accepted that a vendor retaining possession of goods sold by him becomes constructively a bailee of the purchaser, and criminally culpable for a failure to deliver them to his purchaser. Appellants were indicted for larceny only, and of that they clearly were not guilty.
Were the items specially manufactured goods? Is the defendant to blame since the items cannot be sold at any other location? Is the verbal agreement for the sale of goods more than $500 enforceable?
...useless car to a junk yard to recover some loss, but the difference of the re-sale of the junk-car would be a significant loss. Though there were no adequate assurances to the contract, anticipatory repudiation is the only probable remedy for Jack. However, the outcome would weigh on the predominant factor test, which is met because Tom is covered as a merchant because he is operating in his usual daily business, and Jack is the buyer. The sole purpose of the contract was for Tom to sell Jack a car, and for Jack to buy a car from Tom. The UCC, though less stringent than the statute of frauds, does effectively regulate commercial transfers allowing the free market to operate without diminishing the integrity of trade.
Similarly, in the case R v PACE and another (2014) , Pace and Rogers worked at a scrap metal yard and purchased items from individuals who suggested they were stolen. The sellers were undercover police officers and the property belonged to the police. The pair was convicted of offences under Section 327 of POCA, however the court of appeal quashed the conviction on the grounds that a person would not be guilty of the substantive 327 offence if the property in question was not criminal, even if the person believed it to be criminal property at the time.
The plaintiff firm of surveyors bought a second-hand Rolls Royce from the defendants which developed serious defects after 2,000. It was held that the firm was acting as a consumer and that to buy in the course of a business 'the buying of cars must form at the very least an integral part of the buyer's business or a necessary incidental thereto'. It was emphasised that only in those circumstances could the buyer be said to be on equal footing with his seller in terms of bargaining strength.