QUESTION 12 Goldman loaned an expensive diamond to Mann, a celebrity stylist. Wh

Question

QUESTION 12 Goldman loaned an expensive diamond to Mann, a celebrity stylist. When the diamond was not returned on time, Goldman filed a theft report with the police The diamond eventually turned up in the hands of Clump who purchased it for $175.000 at a pawn shop. Goldman now sues Clump for the return of the ring O a Goldman wins because the diamond was stolen and Clump had Void titie O b. Clump wins because Mann was an entrusted merchant who can pass good title in the ordinary course of business O Goldman wins because Mann is not a merchant who "sells" diamond rings d. Clump wins because she was a 3rd party good faith purchaser for value QUESTION 13 The court in Construction Assoc. v. J-M refused to accept a liability disclaimer because O a the disclaimer was proceduraly unconscionable b, the disclaimer was substantively unconscionable O C the disclaimer was negotiated with a significant inequality of bargaining power o d. All of the above QUESTION 14 lack's Ice Cream orally agreed to sell ice cream to Town Field Stadium for $5000. Jack's sent Town Field an order confirmation form that stated the goods, quantity, and price which contained a "sign and return" form. Town Feld did not sign and return the form. After 2 weeks, Jack's started delivery of the ice cream by delivering half of the order, which Town Field accepted. When Jack's delivered the remainder of the order the following month, Town Field refused to accept and refused to pay when Jack's presented it's bill D a. Town Field does not have to pay because it was for a sale of goods over $500 and there was no written contract U b. Town Field only has to pay for half the bill for the goods that were accepted ac Town Field muat pay the entire amount d. Town Field does not have to pay any amount because they never agreed to the sale

Explanation / Answer

Question 12

d. Clump wins because she was a 3rd party good faith purchaser for value.

Clump was a 3rd party who had no idea as to the validity of title. She purchased the product in good faith, so was entitled to its possession

Question 13

b. the disclaimer was substantively unconscionable

The disclaimer stated by J-M in the contract was considered substantively unconscionable because the substance in the contract was unconscionable.

Question 14

c. Town Field must pay the entire amount

Though the sales of goods were of more than $500 and it was under an oral contract, the contract is valid because Town Field accepted the goods in the first instance.

Question 15

b. Jacob will lose because he didn't check the load and therefore was a negligent party.

Jacob was negligent despite of the disclaimer stated that it was store policy not to secure loads for customers.

Question 16

d. Boski wins because the modification is binding when the shoes were delivered and accepted.

U.C.C. Section 2-201(3)(c) provides that an oral agreement is valid, even though it is for a sale of goods costing $500 or more, if the goods have been received and accepted.

Question 17

d. a simple delivery contract

a simple delivery contract occurs when the purchased goods are transfered to the buyer from the seller at the time and place of sale.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.