The Transmission of the Title Certificate - Lab Report Example

CHAPTER 16 CASE 7 I believe that the Bank was not right in this case. The key moment in National Exch. Bank v. Mann is establishing whether the moment of passing the title of property from the seller to the buyer depends of the transmission of the title certificate. The Court has to explain if nondelivery of the certificate means nondelivery of title of care. Under the Wisconsin counterpart of N.Y.U.C.C. § 2-401 (2) “Unless otherwise explicitly agreed title passes to the buyer at the time and place at which the seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods, despite any reservation of a security interest and even though a document of title is to be delivered at a different time or place…”1 Moreover, according to Gilmore, G.2, the range of documents of title does not include automobile certificates of title, as the Uniform Commercial Code has not granted them this legal statute. Therefore, nondelivery of the certificate does not intervene in any way with passing the title. The same conclusion has been reached by the Court in the case of Wood Chevrolet Co. v. Bank of the Southeast3, where it was held that: “…non-delivery of a certificate of title at the time of a sale does not prevent the passage of title from the seller to the buyer.... This is true even where a states certificate of title act provides that no title can be acquired in an automobile until the certificate of title has been issued.”. In conclusion, title to the car passed to Mann at the moment of physical possesion of the car being transferred to him. CHAPTER 17 CASE 3 I believe that in this case, Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc. must be held liable for the damages caused to Young and it should certainly cover the damages caused to the plaintiff. Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc. has certainly breached the contract concluded with Young. Due to the fact that Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc. has ignored its own duties that arise from a contract, the company – as an aggrieved party – has the duty to compensate the damages caused to the co-contractor. However, depending on the reasons that made Frank’s Nursery & Crafts, Inc. breach the contract, the modality of mitigating the caused damages may defer. In the case of Lake Erie Boat Sales, Inc. v. Johnson4, the Court held that, in order to avoid the injured party not recovering her losses, “Ohio law allows a damaged lost volume seller to recover its lost profits from the breached sale in addition to traditional breach of contract damages”, thus applying the lost volume seller theory. According to Goldberg, V.P., “ In cases in which the seller is a retailer, the conclusion is (a) yes, the seller does suffer damages, (b) the damages are the market price of the service of selling the goods, (c) the market price of selling is approximately the gross margin, (d) even though the damages are incurred, full compensation would probably be inefficient, and (e) the law ought to encourage the parties to use nonrefundable deposits as liquidated damages.”5 Therefore, I believe that the Court ought to apply the lost volume seller theory in this case and, thus, reduce Young’s damages to minimum. CHAPTER 18 CASE 6 I strongly believe that the Benfers did have cause of action against the retailer – Thomas, along with the manufacturer - Town & Country Mobile Homes, Inc. Thomas was the one who actually convinced the Benfers, by showing them a model mobile home, that the mobile home had the one-quarter-inch sheathing on the siding that made it better than cheaper units, by this intentionally misleading the couple and creating for them a misrepresentation on the product they were about to purchase. Moreover, Thomas, by knowingly proposing the Benfers a more expensive unit, which supposedly had the sheathing desired by the potential buyers, actually lied to them, by taking the price for a more expensive product and offering them a cheaper one. Moreover, by delivering to the purchasers the written warranty, which stated that the mobile home had the one-quarter-inch sheathing on the siding, Thomas actually continued lying and misleading the Benfers. According to Section 2.313 of the Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code Ann. (Tex. UCC 1968), “(a) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows: (1) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.... (3) Any sample or model which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model."6 According to the facts stated above, I believe that the Benfers did have cause of action against Thomas, as he is liable for breach of express warranty. CHAPTER 19 CASE 2 In this case, I do not agree with Barrett’s affirmation that consumer protection law should be applied to the transaction. According to the Vermont Statutes, Title 9: Commerce and Trade, Chapter 63: Consumer Fraud, § 2451a “ (a) "Consumer" means any person who purchases, leases, contracts for, or otherwise agrees to pay consideration for goods or services not for resale in the ordinary course of his or her trade or business but for his or her use or benefit or the use or benefit of a member of his or her household, or in connection with the operation of his or her household or a farm whether or not the farm is conducted as a trade or business, or a person who purchases, leases, contracts for, or otherwise agrees to pay consideration for goods or services not for resale in the ordinary course of his or her trade or business but for the use or benefit of his or her business or in connection with the operation of his or her business.”7 Barrett’s activity does not fall under the provisions defining the consumer. Barrett was using the Adirondack Bottled Gas Corp.’s services exclusively for business purposes, and he may not be regarded as a consumer in such a case. A purchaser who buys service or goods for commercial purposes is not a consumer under the consumer protection laws. Therefore, consumer protection law should not be applied to this case. CHAPTER 20 CASE 2 I believe that in this case, Feist may not be held liable for copyright infringement. The copyright in USA is protected by several national legislative acts like: the Copyright Clause of the USA Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 8), Title 17 of the USA Code, the DMCA, Copyright Act of 1790, Copyright Act of 1831, Copyright Act of 1909, Copyright Act of 1976, Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994 - restored U.S. copyright for certain foreign works, Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years and the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005. International acts that affect the American copyright law are the following: the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works - established copyrights of U.S. works in Berne Convention countries; the Universal Copyright Convention - this treaty was developed by UNESCO as an alternative to the Berne Convention and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. However, all these acts refer to protecting original, creative work. According to the USA Code, Title 17, § 102, “Subject matter of copyright: (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accordance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include the following categories:(1) literary works; (2) musical works, including any accompanying words; (3) dramatic works, including any accompanying music; (4) pantomimes and choreographic works; (5) pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; (6) motion pictures and other audiovisual works; (7) sound recordings; and (8) architectural works.”8 Under no possible interpretation of this title can telephone directories be included in the list of subjects protected by copyright laws. These directories are simple lists with information included, with no creative or original expression. It may be possible that the arrangement style itself, or the manner of selecting the information that shall be included in the list form intellectual property and is, therefore, protected by the copyright laws. For example, under the Uruguay Round Agreement Part II, Section 1, Article 10 it is held that: “Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself.”9 However, this type of information itself is not copyrightable, and Feist’s actions did not constitute copyright infringement. CHAPTER 22 CASE 4 Each person has the right to fully enjoy his own property. However, one’s enjoyment should not interfere with other people enjoying their property. In this case, Smith’s wish to enjoy the beauty of his tree causes inconveniences and damages to his neighbor – Dudley. Nevertheless, the USA legislation allows property holders to solve this kind of issues on their own, without harming the property of another. Under the USA law, a person is entitled to trim the branches of his neighbor’s tree if they extend on their property. However, this can only be done without actually harming the tree’s general state of health. Also, the branches and fruits of the tree belong to the tree owner – therefore, if Dudley decides to cut off the branches on his property, he must return the branches and fruits to Smith. However, before deciding to cut off the branches, I believe that Dudley should address a request to solve this issue to the local council. If their response is not satisfactory to Dudley, he may now act as a private landowner and trim the branches. References: 1. Emergency Beacon Corporation v. Montmarco, 790 f2d 285 2. Goldberg, V.P. Readings in the Economics of Contract Law. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Print. 3. Lake Erie Boat Sales, Inc. v. Johnson, 11 Ohio App.3d 55, 463 N.E.2d 70, 73 (1983) 4. N.Y.U.C.C. § 2-401 (2) 5. Texas UCC 1968 6. The Uruguay Round Agreement Part II, Section 1, Article 10 7. USA Code, Title 17, § 102 8. Vermont Statutes, Title 9: Commerce and Trade, Chapter 63: Consumer Fraud, § 2451a 9. Wood Chevrolet Co. v. Bank of the Southeast, 352 So.2d 1350 (Ala.1977) Read More