Jamila purchased a used car from Slick Sid’s car dealership….
Jamila purchased a used car from Slick Sid’s car dealership. Six months later the police seized the car from Jamila on the basis that it was a stolen vehicle. Jamila asked for her money back from Slick Sid’s. The manager of Slick Sid’s told her that the car was not stolen, but that even if it were, Slick Sid’s acted in good faith with no knowledge of a theft; and that, therefore, Jamila, as a good-faith purchaser, had a good title. Slick Sid’s had also sold a used car to Hiro who wrote a bad check for the car and left town, but not before selling the car to Doris. Doris purchased the car with no knowledge of any problem with the check. Slick Sid’s asked Doris to return the car, but she refused. She explained that she had given the car to her son, Ricky. If Jamila’s car was stolen prior to delivery to Slick Sid’s, and no one at the car dealership knew, what kind of title did Slick Sid’s have?
Read DetailsAsha, who has a dress shop, reached an oral agreement with K…
Asha, who has a dress shop, reached an oral agreement with Kim, a wholesaler, to purchase 100 dresses for $80 each, with the dresses to be delivered within 30 days. Kim later orally agreed to a modification whereby she would add ten belts to go along with certain dresses at no extra charge. Kim did so because she wanted to maintain Asha’s good will. Asha sent Kim a memo confirming their oral agreement, including the modification, but heard nothing. When the dresses did not arrive within 30 days, Asha checked with Kim. Kim told her that their agreement was no good because Kim never signed anything and that the UCC does not apply in the retail arena. Which of the following is TRUE regarding whether the agreement between Asha and Kim for the sale of dresses satisfied the writing requirement of the UCC?
Read Details