Su Ru Chen Vs. Wells Fargo Bank
Real World Problems
24-3
Triffin would not be able to claim holder in due course status. Jermielem Merriwether never signed his check. Even though the clerk from A-1 printed his name on the check, which was not a proper signature. Merriwether was the only one who was authorized to sign the check. Since the check was never properly signed, there was no requirement that it had to be paid.
24-4
Yes, the rule states that a drawer is not liable on an unauthorized indorsement. The exceptions to this rule are: 1. Any unauthorized signature is wholly inoperative unless the person whose name is signed ratifies it. 2. A person may be precluded from denying the effectiveness of an unauthorized signature if the person’s negligence led …show more content…
They were the first party to take the check with the forged indorsement.
26-3
The basis for this objection is that Frances owned Su Ru Chen the principal of loyalty to act solely for Chen’s benefit. Chen was unaware that Frances was acting in the interest of her finance, Chiu Chang Chan. This created a conflict of interest in which Frances was in a position opposite her principal, Su Ru Chen.
26-4
The Pappases could be liable on this contract. If a principal is partially disclosed or undisclosed, the principal and the agent may be liable for nonperformance. The payment checks were payable to Kevin and deposited into his personal account not an Outside Creations account. Also during the signing of the contract, the contract didn’t mention Forever Green and neither did the Pappas. The Crisses were unaware of Forever Green.
27-3
The DES’s denial of unemployment compensation was wrong. Mary Garas was only informed of a job opening with Celsis Laboratory, she was never officially offered a job. Garas never actually “refused” suitable work because she was never offered it in the first place. …show more content…
They also committed an unfair labor practice by denying its employees unpaid time off to attend bargaining sessions during the workday.
29-3
A sole proprietor’s reputation, skill, and relationships with customers cannot have a monetary value placed onto them. They are of a personal value. Each customer would place a different amount of value onto Gaskill’s services. These qualities could be divided into “personal” and “business” goodwill, with her skill being placed into the “business goodwill” and her reputation and relationships with her customers being placed into the “personal goodwill”. I don’t think it is an effective way of valuing Gaskill’s practice. It should be based upon the business’ assets and liabilities.
29-4
General partners owe their partnership a duty of loyalty and a duty of care. Each partner must act in good faith for the benefit of the partnership. Carpenter breached this duty by not stating the significance the dispute with the city over water rights had on the sale of the property. He also breached this duty by not notifying Mcbeth before paying her $800,000 to Austin
24-3
Triffin would not be able to claim holder in due course status. Jermielem Merriwether never signed his check. Even though the clerk from A-1 printed his name on the check, which was not a proper signature. Merriwether was the only one who was authorized to sign the check. Since the check was never properly signed, there was no requirement that it had to be paid.
24-4
Yes, the rule states that a drawer is not liable on an unauthorized indorsement. The exceptions to this rule are: 1. Any unauthorized signature is wholly inoperative unless the person whose name is signed ratifies it. 2. A person may be precluded from denying the effectiveness of an unauthorized signature if the person’s negligence led …show more content…
They were the first party to take the check with the forged indorsement.
26-3
The basis for this objection is that Frances owned Su Ru Chen the principal of loyalty to act solely for Chen’s benefit. Chen was unaware that Frances was acting in the interest of her finance, Chiu Chang Chan. This created a conflict of interest in which Frances was in a position opposite her principal, Su Ru Chen.
26-4
The Pappases could be liable on this contract. If a principal is partially disclosed or undisclosed, the principal and the agent may be liable for nonperformance. The payment checks were payable to Kevin and deposited into his personal account not an Outside Creations account. Also during the signing of the contract, the contract didn’t mention Forever Green and neither did the Pappas. The Crisses were unaware of Forever Green.
27-3
The DES’s denial of unemployment compensation was wrong. Mary Garas was only informed of a job opening with Celsis Laboratory, she was never officially offered a job. Garas never actually “refused” suitable work because she was never offered it in the first place. …show more content…
They also committed an unfair labor practice by denying its employees unpaid time off to attend bargaining sessions during the workday.
29-3
A sole proprietor’s reputation, skill, and relationships with customers cannot have a monetary value placed onto them. They are of a personal value. Each customer would place a different amount of value onto Gaskill’s services. These qualities could be divided into “personal” and “business” goodwill, with her skill being placed into the “business goodwill” and her reputation and relationships with her customers being placed into the “personal goodwill”. I don’t think it is an effective way of valuing Gaskill’s practice. It should be based upon the business’ assets and liabilities.
29-4
General partners owe their partnership a duty of loyalty and a duty of care. Each partner must act in good faith for the benefit of the partnership. Carpenter breached this duty by not stating the significance the dispute with the city over water rights had on the sale of the property. He also breached this duty by not notifying Mcbeth before paying her $800,000 to Austin