M sells goods to a rogue, R. R obtained the title of the goods despites his deceit intention. R appears to resell the goods to N, who is the innocent purchaser, and N obtained the title of the goods. Is the contract void or voidable? Can M recover the goods from N? Please state your reasons.

M sells goods to a rogue, R. R obtained the title of the goods despites his deceit intention. R appears to resell the goods to N, who is the innocent purchaser, and N obtained the title of the goods. Is the contract void or voidable? Can M recover the goods from N? Please state your reasons.

Similar questions

A pizza parlor owner uses a vending machine company to service his soft drinks.The owner of the company sells his route to Mr X and delegates all of his contractsincluding the one with the pizza parlor. This enrages the pizza parlor owner, because Mr. X was engaged to the pizza parlor owner's sister and left her standing at the altar. He claims that the obligation is non-delegable because it's "personal". Do you agree
Ramona Smith spilled orange juice on her computer two days before her term paper was due. Ramona desperately needed a new laptop, so she went online and found a laptop that fit her needs. She emailed the seller, Effie Frost, expressing her desire to purchase the laptop. Effie ernailed Ramona back and said that she (Effie) would sell Effie's laptop to Ramona for $300. An hour later, Ramona and Effie signed the following agreement: "1, Effie Frost, agree to sell my laptop computer to Ramona Smith for Four Hundred Dollars and zero cents. This is the entirety of the agreement. This agreement supersedes any and all other agreements made by the seller and the buyer." Ramona now claims that she should only pay $300 for the laptop because during that initial email exchange with Effie, Effie told Ramona that $300 was the price of the laptop, and she has the email exchange as evidence of the price quote of $300. What legal concept could be used to enforce the contract for $400? O Condition…
Owe
Differentiate obligations arising from delict from obligations arising from quasi – delict.
Joseph Eugene Dodson, age sixteen, purchased a used pickup truck from Burns and Mary Shrader. The Shraders owned and operated Shrader’s Auto Sales. Dodson paid $14,900 in cash for the truck. At the time of sale, the Shraders did not question Dodson’s age, but thought he was eighteen or nineteen. Dodson made no misrepresentation concerning his age. Nine months after the date of purchase, the truck began to develop mechanical problems. A mechanic diagnosed the problem as a burnt valve but could not be certain. Dodson, who could not afford the repairs, continued to drive the truck until one month later, when the engine “blew up.” Dodson parked the vehicle in the front yard of his parents’ home and contacted the Shraders to rescind the purchase of the truck and to request a full refund. a. What arguments would support Dodson’s termination of the contract? b. What arguments would support Shrader’s position that the contract is not voidable? c. Which side should prevail? Explain.
Stein, a mechanic, and Beal, a life insurance agent, entered into a written contract for the sale of Stein’s tractor to Beal for $6,800 cash. It was agreed that Stein would tune the motor on the tractor. Stein fulfilled this obligation and on the night of July 1 telephoned Beal that the tractor was ready to be picked up upon Beal’s making payment. Beal responded, “I’ll be there in the morning with the money.” On the next morning, however, Beal was approached by an insurance prospect and decided to get the tractor at a later date. On the night of .July 2, the tractor was destroyed by fire of unknown origin. Neither Stein nor Beal had any fire insurance. Who must bear the loss? Why?
Eileen Murphy often cared for her elderly neighbor, Thomas Kenney. He paid her $25 per day for her help and once gave her a bank certificate of deposit worth $25,000. She spent the money. Murphy alleged that shortly before his death, Kenney gave her a large block of shares in three corporations. He called his broker, intending to instruct him to transfer the shares to Murphy’s name, but the broker was ill and unavailable. So Kenney told Murphy to write her name on the shares and keep them, which she did. Two weeks later Kenney died. When Murphy presented the shares to Kenney’s broker to transfer ownership to her, the broker refused because Kenney had never endorsed the shares as the law requires, that is, signed them over to Murphy. Was Murphy entitled to the $25,000? To the shares?
Ma3. Explain in brief. Sally Henderson is an employee of Good Eats Restaurant. Sally's contract with Good Eats Restaurant states: "Sally Henderson shall ensure the bathrooms and dining room area are reasonably clean during operating hours." Sally's good friend James is also employed by Good Eats Restaurant as a parking attendant, a person who parks customers’ cars. On a very busy night at Good Eats Restaurant, without the authorization of Good Eats Restaurant, Sally decided to help her friend James park cars. Sally injures a customer due to Sally's negligent driving while parking cars. The injured customer sues Sally and Good Eats Restaurant. Is it likely that Good Eats Restaurant will be determined to be liable to the injured customer. BRIEFLY EXPLAIN.
On March 1, Joseph sold to Sandra fifty acres of land in Oregon, which Joseph at the time represented to be fine black loam, high, dry, and free of stumps. Sandra paid Joseph the agreed price of $140,000 and took from him a deed to the land. Subsequently discovering that the land was low, swampy, and not entirely free of stumps, Sandra nevertheless undertook to convert the greater part of the land into cranberry bogs. After one year of cranberry culture, Sandra became entirely dissatisfied, tendered the land back to Joseph, and demanded from Joseph the return of the $140,000. Upon Joseph’s refusal to repay the money, Sandra brings an action against him to recover the $140,000. What judgment?
Mona offers Ned, a building inspector, money to overlook the violations in her new warehouse. Ned accepts the money and overlooks the violations. Mona is charged with the crime of bribery. The crime occurred when a. Mona decided to offer the bribe. b. Mona offered the bribe. c. Ned overlooked the violations. d. Ned accepted the bribe.
A minor enters into a contract for the purchase of certain necessaries , in such case Question 8Answer a. he is liable to pay b. his guardian is liable to pay. c. he is not personally liable to pay d. his estate is liable to pay
Tiana, a citizen of Mississippi, was injured by humidifier made by Humidor, Inc. Humidor is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Silver Springs, Maryland. By the time all of the medical bills, lost work, and other injuries accumulated, the total was $90,000. All of Tiana’s damages would fall under Mississippi or Maryland state law causes of action.In what courts can Tiana sue Humidor?• Where should Tiana sue?