In Bearden v. Wardley Corp, where Bearden sued Wardley because one of its agents, Gritton, bought a house from her and then cheated her on the transaction, the court held that:
a. both Wardley and Gritton owed Bearden fiduciary duties and so both were liable
b. neither Wardley nor Gritton owed Bearden fiduciary duties and so neither was liable c. only Wardley owed Bearden fiduciary duties and so only Warden was liable
d. only Gritton owed Bearden fiduciary duties and so only Gritton was liable e. none of the other choices are correct
Question 2
Lazur Corp entered into a contract with Baker Suppliers, Inc, to purchase a used word processor from Baker. Lazur is engaged in the business of selling new and used word processors to the general public. The contract required Baker to ship the goods to Lazur by common carrier pursuant to the following provision in the contract: FOB Baker Suppliers, Inc, loading dock.. Baker also represented in the contract that the word processor had been used for only 10 hours by its previous owner. The contract included the provision that the word processor was being sold as is, and this provision was in a larger and different type style than the remainder of the contract. Assume that Lazur refused to accept the word processor even though it was in all respects conforming to the contract and that the contract is otherwise silent. Under the UCC Sales Article:
a. Baker can successfully sue for specific performance and make Lazur accept and pay for the word processor.
b. Baker may resell the word processor to another buyer.
c. Baker must sue for the difference between the market value of the word processor and the contract price plus its incidental damages.
d. Baker cannot successfully sue for consequential damages unless it attempts to resell the word processor.
Categories of Infectious Agents
Local Anesthetic Agents
Classification of Antihypertensive Agents
Classification of Antihypertensive Agents
Environmental DNA-damaging agents
Mechanism of actions of antihypertensive Agents