Author Question: Which of the following is NOT a securities professional: a. a broker b. a dealer c. an adviser d. ... (Read 69 times)

jake · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Which of the following is NOT a securities professional:
a. a broker b. a dealer
c. an adviser
d. all of the other specific choices are securities professionals e. none of the other specific choices are correct

Question 2

Perfect Tender. Advanced Polymer Sciences, Inc (APS), based in Ohio, makes polymers and resins for use as protective coatings in industrial applications. APS also owns the technology for equipment used to make certain composite fibers. SAVA gumarska in kemijska industria d.d. (SAVA), based in Slovenia, makes rubber goods. In 1999, SAVA and APS contracted to form SAVA Advanced Polymers proizvodno podjetje d.o.o. (SAVA AP) to make and distribute APS products in Eastern Europe. Their contract provided for, among other things, the alteration of a facility to make the products using specially made equipment to be sold by APS to SAVA. Disputes arose between the parties, and in August 2000, SAVA stopped work on the new facility. APS then notified SAVA that it was stopping the manufacture of the equipment and insist

dantucker · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

d

Answer to Question 2

Perfect tender
The court, among other things, awarded damages to Advanced Polymer Sciences, Inc. (APS) against SAVA gumarska in kemijska industria d.d. (SAVA) for breach of contract. SAVA appealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which also ruled against SAVA on this point. The appellate court reasoned that under UCC 2-609, when reasonable grounds for insecurity exist, a party may make a written demand for adequate assurance of performance by the other party and may, if commercially reasonable, suspend his own performance until it receives such assurance. The unchallenged findings and the evidence in the record indicate that APS had such reasonable grounds for insecurity in August 2000. SAVA had indicated it had stopped work on the building that was to house the special equipment APS was manufacturing. APS requested assurances from SAVA and notified SAVA that APS had suspended performance while the disputes were negotiated. This was a request for adequate assurance of performance. The record also supports an implied finding that suspending performance was commercially reasonable. Several months remained until the equipment was due to be shipped and there is no indication that manufacturing could not have resumed had the disputes been resolved. The court concluded that SAVA, not APS, repudiated the parties' contract.