Reference no: EM133304929

After completing the learning activities in this module, you should have a sense of some of the issues that occur in the sale of goods, and how the UCC operates to provide clarity when the terms of the contract are ambiguous or lacking.

you will have an opportunity to analyze situations surrounding the sale of goods.

For each of the following, read through the scenario and then answer each of the questions that follow as completely as possible:

1: Kennedy agreed to sell her car, a 1984 Mustang, to a man representing himself as James Matson. In exchange for a cashier's check, Kennedy signed over the Mustang's title to Matson. Ten days later when Kennedy learned that the cashier's check was a forgery, he filed a stolen vehicle report with the police. However, the police did not locate Matson or the Mustang. Over two years later, Kennedy asked the police to run a check on the Mustang's VIN (Vehicle Identification Number). The check revealed the name and address of Tanya Caser. Caser, who held the certificate of title, had purchased it from her brother, who in turn had purchased it in response to a newspaper ad. Kennedy filed suit again Caser to establish legal ownership of the Mustang. Is Kennedy entitled to regain possession and title to the Mustang from Caser?

2: Spudmuffin, an Idaho corporation, agreed to sell Jacobs, who operated a business in Livonia, Michigan, two carloads of potatoes at $4,40 per sack, "FOB Idaho shipping point." Spudmuffin had the potatoes loaded aboard the railroad cars, however, did not have floor-racks in the cars under the potatoes, as is customary during winter months. As a result, there was no warm air circulating and the potatoes were frozen while in transit. Spudmuffin claims his obligations ended with the delivery to the carrier and that the risk of loss was on Jacobs. What argument would you make for Jacobs?

3: La Marsten bought a used handgun for $250 from Shady's Gun Shop, a licensed firearms dealer. At the time, neither La Marsten or Shady's knew that the gun had been stolen prior to the time Shady's bought it. While La Marsten was using the gun for target shooting, he was questioned by a police officer. The officer traced the serial number on the gun, determined that it had been stolen, and arrested La Marsten. La Marsten had to hire an attorney to defend himself against the criminal charges. La Marsten brought a lawsuit against Shady's Gund Shop for breach of warranty of title. He sought to recover the purchase price of the gun plus $8,000, the amount of his attorney's fees, as "consequential damages." Can a buyer who does not get good title to the goods he purchased recover from the seller consequential damages caused by the breach of warranty of title?