Thursday, August 8, 2013
Link to Debt Cancellation Article in Real Estate Taxation
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2232467
Link to Secured Transactions Lecture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Tk-eO13blk (or)
http://youtu.be/-Tk-eO13blk
http://youtu.be/-Tk-eO13blk
Thursday, August 1, 2013
Bitcoins and UCC 3-104(a)
Bitcoin is a digital currency not regulated by any government or central bank. UCC 3-104(a) provides that a negotiable instrument must promise or order payments in a governmental currency. Should the UCC be amended to include digital currencies? What issues might arise with such an amendment? Your thoughts?
Post-dated and stale checks
We discussed legal issues involving bank checks. A bank may accept post-dated and stale checks. Is a bank acting "commercially reasonable" by cashing these checks? Is the requirement to act "commercially reasonable" consistent with allowing a bank to cash a post-dated or stale check? Is selecting a future date for payment in electronic commerce the equivalent of post-dating a check? Your thoughts?
Friday, July 26, 2013
Lumber Sales v. Brown
Kris provided me with a case that addresses the issue presented in problem 10 on p. 510- Lumber Sales v. Brown. Please consider the following:
"The plaintiff contends and defendant admits that on or about the 6th day of November, 1968, the defendant agreed to purchase from plaintiff five carloads of lumber, which the plaintiff agreed to sell and deliver to defendant at a certain railroad siding near Radnor Yards in Nashville, Tennessee, which siding was known and designated by the railroad carrier as No. 609-A.
Plaintiff contends that all five carloads of lumber were delivered to defendant at said railroad siding in Nashville, Tennessee, and the defendant admits that four carloads thereof were received by him, but he denies that the fifth carload of lumber, which was to consist of two by four pine studs, was ever delivered to him or received by him.
The plaintiff's contention that this fifth carload of lumber was duly delivered to defendant and the defendant's denial that same was delivered to or received by him is the substance of the controversy between the parties...
The trial Court held that the risk of loss in this case did, in fact, pass to the defendant buyer...
This was an ordinary business day and the time of 11:07 A.M. was a reasonable business hour. If it was not convenient with the defendant to unload the lumber within the few hours after being duly notified of delivery, then he should have protected himself against risk of loss by directing someone to guard the cargo against loss by theft and other hazards.
To hold that the seller or the carrier should, under the circumstances existing in a case of this kind, continue to protect the goods until such time as the buyer may find it convenient to unload them would impose an undue burden upon the seller or the carrier and unnecessarily obstruct the channels of commerce...
... the judgment of the trial [***12] Court is affirmed."
"The plaintiff contends and defendant admits that on or about the 6th day of November, 1968, the defendant agreed to purchase from plaintiff five carloads of lumber, which the plaintiff agreed to sell and deliver to defendant at a certain railroad siding near Radnor Yards in Nashville, Tennessee, which siding was known and designated by the railroad carrier as No. 609-A.
Plaintiff contends that all five carloads of lumber were delivered to defendant at said railroad siding in Nashville, Tennessee, and the defendant admits that four carloads thereof were received by him, but he denies that the fifth carload of lumber, which was to consist of two by four pine studs, was ever delivered to him or received by him.
The plaintiff's contention that this fifth carload of lumber was duly delivered to defendant and the defendant's denial that same was delivered to or received by him is the substance of the controversy between the parties...
The trial Court held that the risk of loss in this case did, in fact, pass to the defendant buyer...
This was an ordinary business day and the time of 11:07 A.M. was a reasonable business hour. If it was not convenient with the defendant to unload the lumber within the few hours after being duly notified of delivery, then he should have protected himself against risk of loss by directing someone to guard the cargo against loss by theft and other hazards.
To hold that the seller or the carrier should, under the circumstances existing in a case of this kind, continue to protect the goods until such time as the buyer may find it convenient to unload them would impose an undue burden upon the seller or the carrier and unnecessarily obstruct the channels of commerce...
... the judgment of the trial [***12] Court is affirmed."
Monday, November 12, 2012
Please read: Kovel Letters
http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2011/06/21/can-irs-force-your-accountant-to-talk/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
