Which of the following would not be a factor in determining a ...

[berenicecastro]

Which of the following would not be a factor in determining a ratification:
 a. the principal can ratify only agreements about which he has knowledge of the material facts b. the agent must have purported to act for of the principal and not on the agent's own behalf
  c. the third party wishes for the principal to be a party to a contract
  d. if the original agreement between the agent and third party was required by law to be in writing, ratification must also be in writing
  e. all of the other choices

Question 2

Larceny. In February 2001, a homeowner hired Jimmy Smith, a contractor claiming to employ a crew of thirty workers, to build a garage. The homeowner paid Smith 7,950 and agreed to make additional payments as needed to complete the project, up to 15,900. Smith promised to start the next day and finish within eight weeks. Nearly a month passed with no work, while Smith lied to the homeowner that materials were on back order. During a second month, footings were created for the foundation, and a subcontractor poured the concrete slab, but Smith did not return the homeowner's phone calls. After eight weeks, the homeowner confronted Smith, who promised to complete the job, worked on the site that day until lunch, and never returned. Three months later, the homeowner again confronted Smith, who promised to pay

[miss_1456@hotmail.com]

Answer to Question 1

c

Answer to Question 2

Larceny
A Georgia state statute provides that a person commits the offense of theft by taking larceny when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated. A jury found Smith guilty of this crime. Smith ap-pealed to a state intermediate appellate court, which affirmed his conviction. The court explained, In a case such as this, when the alleged taking occurs when a defendant fails to perform under a contract with the victim, the real issue is whether the defendant accepted or retained the victim's money with no intention to satisfy his obligations under the contract. Here, Smith abandoned the project, promised to return the unearned portion of the down payment, then failed to do so. The jury was authorized to find Smith guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of theft by taking. The court added, Under the statute, the phrase regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated' is a catch-all phrase rendering our theft by taking statute broad enough to encompass theft by conversion, theft by deception or any other of the myriad and even yet-to-be-concocted schemes for depriving people of their property.

[berenicecastro]

Thank you

[miss_1456@hotmail.com]

Happy to help you