Reference no: EM132126290

Questions -

1. Star Coach, L.L.C., is in the business of converting sport utility vehicles and pickup trucks into custom vehicles. Star Coach performs the labor involved in in- stalling parts supplied by other companies onto vehicles the dealers Durango to Star Coach and, over a period of several months, Star Coach converted the vehicle using parts supplied by another company, Performance West. Several months later, Star Coach delivered the vehicle to Heart of Texas Dodge, and Heart of Texas Dodge paid Star Coach the contract price of $15,768 without inspecting the vehicle. Two days later, Heart of Texas Dodge inspected the vehicle and concluded that the workmanship was faulty. It stopped payment on the check and Star Coach filed suit against Heart of Texas Dodge. One of the issues in the litigation was whether the UCC applied to the contract in this case. Does the UCC apply to a contract for the conversion of a van that involves both goods and services?

2. Keith Russell, a boat dealer, contracted to sell a 19- foot Kindsvater boat to Robert Clouser for $8,500. The agreement stipulated that Clouser was to make a down payment of $1,700, with the balance due when he took possession of the boat. According to the contract, Russell was to retain possession of the boat in order to install a new engine and drive train. While the boat was still in Russell's possession, it was completely destroyed when it struck a seawall. Transamerica, Russell's insurance company, refused to honor Russell's claim for the damages to the boat. The insurance policy between Transamerica and Russell covered only watercraft under 26 feet in length that were not owned by Russell. Transamerica argued that the boat was not covered by the policy since Russell still owned it at the time of the accident. Did Russell have title to the boat at the time of the accident?

3. Kenneth West agreed to sell his car, a 1975 Corvette, to a man representing himself as Robert Wilson. In exchange for a cashier's check, West signed over the Corvette's title to Wilson. Ten days later, when West learned that the cashier's check was a forgery, he filed a stolen vehicle report with the police. However, the police did not locate Wilson or the Corvette, and the case grew cold. Nearly two and a half years later, West asked the police to run a check on the Corvette's vehicle identification number. The check revealed the name and address of Tammy Roberts. Roberts, who held the certificate of title, had purchased it from her brother, who in turn had purchased it in response to a newspaper ad. West filed suit against Roberts to establish legal ownership of the Corvette. Is West entitled to regain possession and title to the Corvette from Roberts?

4. In December, Arlene Bradley entered Alsafi Oriental Rugs and advised the owner that she was an interior decorator and that she was interested in selling some of his rugs to one of her customers. Alsafi did not know Bradley and had never done business with her. How- ever, he allowed her to take three rugs out on consignment with the understanding that she would return them if her customer was not interested. In fact, however, Bradley was not obtaining the rugs for a customer but was instead working for another individual, Walid Salaam, a rug dealer. A friend of Bradley's had introduced her to Salaam earlier. Salaam had advised the two women that he was the owner of a recently closed oriental rug store that he was attempting to reopen. He offered to teach them how to become decorators and told them that when his store reopened, they could operate out of the store. Salaam advised them that until he got his store restocked, however, he wanted them to check out rugs on approval from other rug dealers in town. As they had no experience with oriental rugs, Salaam instructed them which rugs to look for. He then instructed them to go to rug dealers in Memphis and advise them that they were interior decorators with customers that wanted to purchase oriental rugs. After Bradley obtained possession of the three rugs from Alsafi, she turned them over to Salaam, who in turn took them to a pawnshop operated by the American Loan Company. There Salaam pawned the rugs, obtaining approximately $5,000 after filling out the required paperwork. Salaam failed to redeem the rugs. Following the default, the pawnshop gave the appropriate notice that it intended to dispose of them. In April of the following year, Alsafi learned that his rugs were at the pawnshop. After visiting the pawn- shop and identifying the three rugs as his, he brought suit to recover possession of them. Was Alsafi entitled to recover the rugs from the pawnshop?

5. Legendary Homes, a home builder, purchased various appliances from Ron Mead T.V. & Appliance, a retail merchant selling home appliances. They were intended to be installed in one of Legendary Homes houses and were to be delivered on February 1. At 5 o'clock on that day, the appliances had not been delivered. Legendary Homes employees closed the home and left. Sometime between 5 and 6:30, Ron Mead delivered the appliances. No one was at the home so the delivery- man put the appliances in the garage. During the night, someone stole the appliances. Legendary Homes denied it was responsible for the loss and refused to pay Ron Mead for the appliances. Ron Mead then brought suit for the purchase price. Did Legendary Homes have the risk of loss of the appliances?

6. In June, Ramos entered into a contract to buy a motor- cycle from Big Wheel Sports Center. He paid the purchase price of $893 and was given the papers necessary to register the cycle and get insurance on it. Ramos registered the cycle but had not attached the license plates to it. He left on vacation and told the salesperson for Big Wheel Sports Center that he would pick up the cycle on his return. While Ramos was on vacation, there was an electric power blackout in New York City and the cycle was stolen by looters. Ramos then sued Big Wheel Sports Center to get back his $893. Did Big Wheel Sports Center have the risk of loss of the motorcycle?

7. Richard Burnett agreed to purchase a mobile home with a shed from Betty Jean Putrell, Executrix of the Estate of Lena Holland. On Saturday, March 3, Burnett paid Putrell $6,500 and was given the certificate of title to the mobile home as well as a key to it, but no keys to the shed. At the time the certificate of title was transferred, the following items remained in the mobile home: the washer and dryer, mattress and box springs, two chairs, items in the refrigerator, and the entire con- tents of the shed. These items were to be retained by Putrell and removed by her. To facilitate removal she retained one key to the mobile home and the only keys to the shed. On Sunday, March 4, the mobile home was destroyed by fire through the fault of neither party. At the time of the fire, Putrell still had a key to the mobile home as well as the keys to the shed and she had not re- moved the contents of the mobile home or of the shed. The contents of the shed were not destroyed and were subsequently removed by Putrell. Burnett brought suit against Putrell to recover the $6,500 he had paid for the mobile home and shed. Did the seller, Putrell, have the risk of loss of the trailer?