______ are sold directly to the public through the mail or ...

[Mr.Thesaxman]

______ are sold directly to the public through the mail or Internet with no sales commission.
 a. open mutual funds
  b. load mutual funds
  c. limited mutual funds d. fixed mutual funds
  e. none of the other choices are correct

Question 2

Sales by Nonowners. Tony Mangum contracted to purchase a 580C Case backhoe and loader from Liles Brothers & Son on November 25, 1977. The sales price was 20,561. Mangum wrote two checks in payment for the machine, one for 3,000 dated November 25 and one for 17,561 postdated to December 2. Liles checked with Mangum's bank and learned that there were sufficient funds to cover the 3,000 check, and Mangum assured Liles that by December 2 there would be sufficient funds in his account to cover the second check. Three days later, Mangum, posing as a heavy-equipment sales representative, sold the equipment for 11,000 to Carl Wright, who operated a septic-tank service. Wright had been looking for a backhoe and knew the market price for this equipment was around 20,000. Wright paid for the equipment with a certified check. On December 2, Liles learned that Mangum did not have sufficient funds in his bank account to cover the check dated December 2 and that Mangum was in jail. When Liles discovered that the backhoe was in Wright's possession, he sought the return of the backhoe from Wright. Does Wright have valid title to the backhoe? Explain.

[moormoney]

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

Sales by nonowners
No. A seller has voidable title to any goods obtained by fraud, paid for by a check that is later dishonored, purchased on credit when the seller is insolvent, or purchased from a minor. A seller with voidable title can pass good title to a good faith purchaser, however. Since Mangum paid for the Case backhoe and loader with a check that was later dishonored, Mangum's title to the equipment is voidable. If Wright can demonstrate that he purchased the equipment from Mangum in good faith, he can claim valid title to the equipment. Wright, however, could not do this to the court's satisfaction. The court held that the low price of the Case backhoe and loader quoted by Mangum constituted sufficient notice that Mangum's title to the equipment could be defective. Despite this notice, Wright failed to inquire into the matter. The court thus deemed that Wright was not a good faith purchaser and that, consequently, Wright had only received voidable title. Therefore, Liles Brothers, the original seller, had the right to rescind its sale with Mangum and reclaim the backhoe from Wright.

[Mr.Thesaxman]

Thank you

[moormoney]

Happy to help you