Author Question: Which of the following is a securities professional: a. a broker b. a dealer c. an adviser d. all ... (Read 67 times)

ETearle · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Which of the following is a securities professional:
a. a broker b. a dealer
c. an adviser
d. all of the other specific choices are correct
e. none of the other specific choices are correct

Question 2

Remedies of the Buyer or Lessee. Mississippi Chemical Corp (MCC) produces ammonia at its fertilizer plant in Yazoo City, Mississippi. The production of ammonia involves the compression of gas in special equipment called a compressor train. In 1989, MCC bought from Dresser-Rand Co a specially designed train that included a high-case compressor and a low-case compressor. The contract expressly guaranteed that the train would be free from defects and would conform to certain technical specifications, but it did not work as promised. When the high-case compressor broke in 1990, MCC wrote to Dresser, This letter constitutes notice by MCC that

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

Answer to Question 1

d

Answer to Question 2

Remedies of the buyer or lessee
A jury awarded MCC damages in the amount of 4,422,876.92 for lost profits during the different periods when the train was malfunctioning. Dresser appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court held in part that MCC provided adequate notice of the defects in the compressor train to trigger liability under the contract, and affirmed the judgment of the lower court. Under UCC 2-607(3), a buyer who accepts tender of goods must within a reasonable time after he discovers or should have discovered any breach notify the seller of breach or be barred from any remedy. The appellate court noted that for notice to be sufficient under this provision, it need not be a specific claim for damages or an assertion of legal rights. The court emphasized that MCC gave notice of defects in the high case compressor . . . . It is further undisputed that MCC provided evidence that the defects in the high case compressor were common to the low case compressor as well. Given this evidence, a reasonable jury could have concluded, under the notice provision of the UCC, that MCC's 1990 letter provided suffi-cient notice to trigger liability for any common defect in the low case or the high case compressor.