Anne Robertson obtained telescopes from the See-Well Optics Company at dealer
prices on the pretense of being a dealer in optical equipment. See-Well later determined
that Robertson was not, had never been, and did not plan to be a dealer in optics. By the
time these facts emerged, Robertson had succeeded in selling the telescopes to several
individuals located throughout the country. These buyers had responded to
advertisements placed by Robertson, who again had represented herself as a dealer in
optical equipment. The buyers had purchased the telescopes in good faith at prices
consistent with comparable equipment. See-Well located these buyers and demanded
that the telescopes be returned as property obtained through fraud. Do the buyers of
these telescopes have to return their purchases?
The burden of proving the existence of a partnership will always fall on one of the
partners.
Substantive unconscionability has to do with matters of freedom of assent.
An agreement is illegal when either its formation or performance is a crime or a tort, or
it is contrary to public policy.
Someone who finds and resells stolen property passes on a good title to a good faith
purchaser.
The process of incorporation involves the expenditure of funds for organizational
expenses.
The two most common instruments used to provide the capital structure of a
corporation are stocks and bonds.
A promise that in fact does not impose any obligation on the promisor is known as an
elusive promise.
The federal court system consists of three levels.
One of our most important rights is the right of privacy.
When the privity rule is applied, a bank lending money to the client of an accountant
cannot sue the accountant for malpractice.
Generally, advertisements, catalog prices, and circulars are offers that can be accepted.
The duties of an employee are determined primarily by the contract of employment
with the employer.
Moral standards based on positive law may allow businesses to conduct themselves
unfairly so long as their actions are not illegal.
Louise owned a house next to Robert’s house. Robert made a contract with Midcity
Painters to paint his house. The painters arrived to paint Robert’s house, but mistakenly
painted Louise’s house. She saw the painters at work and made no comment. Later,
Midcity Painters sent Louise a bill for painting her house. She claimed that she was not
liable because she had not made any contract with them. Is this a valid defense?