{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}

Heinrich made two payments eventually the dealer

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Washington vehicle dealer license. Heinrich made two payments. Eventually, the dealer received documents stating that Wilson was buying the truck from Titus-Will. That day, Heinrich signed an application for title. When Heinrich received his truck, Wilson’s check did not clear. Titus demanded return of the truck, so Wilson made Heinrich return it for repairs. Eventually, Wilson told Heinrich that he was not able to afford covering his check to Titus-Will. Several months later, Heinrich regained possession, but not title to, the truck. Issue : Did Titus-Will Sales and Heinrich entrust Wilson? Holding : Yes, the two parties entrusted Wilson. Plaintiff Heinrich was provided title and $3,050 in damages for loss of its use.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Rule of Law : According to the entrustment doctrine, Heinrich must prove that Titus-Will entrusted the truck to Wilson. A buyer in the ordinary course of business acquires good title when buying from a merchant seller who was entrusted with possession of the goods. 23.4 // Martin v. Mellands Inc. Facts : Plaintiff Martin agreed on a trade-in of his old truck with defendant Melland’s new truck. Martin’s written agreement said that Martin must bring title of the old unit to Melland’s within a week, although Martin may attain use and possession of the old unit until the new one was ready. A fire destroyed the old truck, and Martin is fighting for possession of the new truck, which Melland’s refuses to give.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}