{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Chapter 14 Assignment Answers

Chapter 14 Assignment Answers - of his own financial...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Business Law I/Fall 2011 Chapter 14 – Assignment Answers Evelyn Tavares 1. Definitely yes. Once the seller didn’t know the car’s history, he shouldn’t give the statement attesting the car was not involved in a wreck. The seller was guilty of fraud, even if he had no intention to deceive Lester. Lester would not have bought the car, if he knew the car’s history. 2. Yes. The minor’s right to disaffirm the contract is not affected by the fact the motorcycle was damaged, the minors have the right to return goods even when it is and receive their money back. 4. No, just because the offer to make the loan was made on take-it-or-leave-it, does not characterizes duress, High-Tech Collieries had a choice, and opted for taking the loan. Holland has the right to offer conditions that best attend to its necessities. 6. No, Aldrich has the right to collect the note, the company only wanted to make sure it would receive the money back from Donovan. The Donovan’s necessity to sign the note, was not result
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: of his own financial situation; not a result of economic duress. 10. Sippy would rely on the theory that Christich committed fraud, based on the fact that the agent was not truthful with him, and made him believe that the house was in good condition, which the agent knew it was not true. Judgment for Sippy. 11. No, because it does not constitute duress. Pileggi was not threatened of anything when he borrowed money from Young. He chose to do it. The embarrassment, and the possibility of bankruptcy, would be no more the collateral damage of Pileggi decision of not paying Young. 13. The seller knew that C&J wanted only new parts, by selling him secondhand parts, without C&J knowledge, the seller did commit fraud. Even if there was not a written warranty or statement from the seller, attesting that all the parts would be new, the buyer made himself clear that he did not want used parts, knowing about this requisite, the seller still made a deal with the buyer....
View Full Document

{[ snackBarMessage ]}