TRY ME!
Mexicali Rose Case Outcome
Summary
In Mexicali Rose v. Superior Court, the court used the reasonable expectation test, finding no breach of implied warranty of merchantability due to a chicken bone. Minors cannot ratify unauthorized contracts, and agents may breach implied warranties. Vicarious liability involves time, place, and negligent hiring.Full Conversation
(The following factual scenario applies to questions *-* )
Billy is *, Shankar is his agent. Shankar enters into a contract with a 3rd party on behalf of Billy.
Flag question: Question *
Question * pts
*. (T/F) Based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, if Shankar enters into a contract without authority, Billy cannot ratify his actions.
Group of answer choices
True
False
False. Based on general contract law principles, even if Shankar enters into a contract without authority, Billy (being a minor) cannot ratify the contract. Contracts entered into by minors are typically voidable at the option of the minor, but minors cannot ratify contracts they did not have the capacity to enter into initially.
Based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, which of the following is true:
a. Shankar is a surety for Billy.
b. Shankar has breached his implied warranty of capacity.
c. Shankar has breached his duty as a dual agent.
d. Shankar has breached his implied warranty of title.
e. Two of the above.
Based on the information provided:
- Shankar is acting as Billy's agent.
- Shankar entered into a contract with a third party on behalf of Billy, who is a minor.
Given these facts, the correct answer would be:
e. Two of the above.
This is because:
- Shankar may have breached his implied warranty of capacity (b) since Billy, being a minor, does not have the legal capacity to enter into contracts.
- Shankar has breached his implied warranty of title (d) if he impliedly warranted that Billy had the capacity to contract when he did not.
So, both (b) and (d) are correct.
- Shankar is acting as Billy's agent.
- Shankar entered into a contract with a third party on behalf of Billy, who is a minor.
Given these facts, the correct answer would be:
e. Two of the above.
This is because:
- Shankar may have breached his implied warranty of capacity (b) since Billy, being a minor, does not have the legal capacity to enter into contracts.
- Shankar has breached his implied warranty of title (d) if he impliedly warranted that Billy had the capacity to contract when he did not.
So, both (b) and (d) are correct.
(T/F) Based upon our discussions, Shankar is liable to the 3rd party if Billy rescinds the contract.
Group of answer choices
True
False
Case Rating: *
Based on the information provided, the statement "Shankar is liable to the 3rd party if Billy rescinds the contract" would be:
True
When Billy, a minor, rescinds the contract, Shankar, acting as his agent, could be held liable to the third party for any obligations or damages resulting from the rescission.
Based on the information provided, the statement "Shankar is liable to the 3rd party if Billy rescinds the contract" would be:
True
When Billy, a minor, rescinds the contract, Shankar, acting as his agent, could be held liable to the third party for any obligations or damages resulting from the rescission.
Based upon our class discussions, which of the following is an element of vicarious liability?
a. Time and Place
b. Negligent hiring
c. Negligent firing
d. Two of the above
e. All of the above
Case Rating: *
Based upon general principles of vicarious liability, the correct answer is:
d. Two of the above
Here's the reasoning:
- Time and Place (a) are relevant factors in determining vicarious liability, especially in relation to whether an employee was acting within the scope of their employment.
- Negligent hiring (b) can establish vicarious liability if an employer hires someone who is unfit for the job and that unfitness leads to harm.
However, negligent firing (c) is not typically an element of vicarious liability.
Would you like more information on this topic?
Based upon general principles of vicarious liability, the correct answer is:
d. Two of the above
Here's the reasoning:
- Time and Place (a) are relevant factors in determining vicarious liability, especially in relation to whether an employee was acting within the scope of their employment.
- Negligent hiring (b) can establish vicarious liability if an employer hires someone who is unfit for the job and that unfitness leads to harm.
However, negligent firing (c) is not typically an element of vicarious liability.
Would you like more information on this topic?
Start a new chat