Reference no: EM132258480
1. Medina met Lara at an auction at which they both bid on a tractor. Medina won the auction, purchasing the tractor for $66,500. At a second auction, Medina purchased equipment for the tractor. Lara and Medina agreed that Lara would install the equipment for Medina at Lara's business, and the tractor was moved there. Four months later, Medina paid Lara $10,000 to do the work. Medina believed that Lara's only business was a repair shop. He did not realize that Lara bought and sold equipment at auction. After installing the equipment, Lara represented himself as the owner of the tractor and sold it to First Team Auction for $54,000. Medina had no knowledge of the sale and received no payment from it. First Team sold the tractor to a dealer, who sold it to a consumer. When the truth of the ownership of the tractor became known, the dealer and consumer rescinded their contracts with First Team. The court most likely held that the tractor belonged to
a. First Team, because it bought the tractor in good faith, and Medina bore the risk of entrusting the tractor to Lara.
b. First Team, because it bought the tractor in good faith, although Lara was not a merchant.
c. Medina, because Lara was a merchant.
d. Medina, because he was a good faith purchaser.
2. A key component of Yield Management (also referred to as Revenue Management) is that an opportunity exists in the market to 'fence' off or differentiate pricing to separate market segments.
True or False
3. Olivia buys a watch from Chandler that Chandler stole from Jill. Olivia's title is:
a. voidable by Jill, if Jill locates Olivia.
b. good, because she was a good faith purchaser if she was given title by Chandler.
c. valid but subject to a lawsuit by Olivia for the tort of conversion.
d. void, because she bought the watch from a person who had stolen it.
4. "Kerstin Lindholm (plaintiff) entrusted her Andy Warhol painting to Anders Malmberg, an art dealer who had a reputation for being honest, reliable, and trustworthy. At Lindholm’s direction, Malmberg loaned the painting to the Guggenheim Museum. The Guggenheim later released the painting to Malmberg to be transported to Denmark for display. The Guggenheim’s policy was to release a painting on loan only to the painting’s true owner. Malmberg then sold the painting to Peter Brant (defendant) without Lindholm’s knowledge or permission. Brant was worried that Lindholm might have had a claim on the painting or that Malmberg did not have good title to the painting. Brant hired counsel to conduct a lien search on the painting and to negotiate a formal contract warranting that Malmberg had good title to the painting. The lien search revealed no competing claims to the painting, and Brant purchased the painting. Lindholm sued Brant. The trial court found that Brant was a buyer in the ordinary course of business and therefore took all of Lindholm’s rights to the painting pursuant to Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-403(3). Lindholm appealed."
Lindholm v. Brant, which involved the sale of a Red Elvis silkscreen by Andy Warhol, concerned an issue of whether
a. the purchaser was a buyer in the ordinary course of business who took title to the silkscreen.
b. the purchaser knew title to the silkscreen was under dispute, so had no right to demand clear title.
c. the seller was not a merchant held to standards of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
d. a contract that "impliedly indicated" the delivery of the silkscreen to a particular destination was a destination contract.