The text discusses the case of Landshire Food Service, Inc. v. Coghill, where the defendant, Coghill, sold his Rolls Royce to Bellman who paid with a forged cashier's check. Meanwhile, Hyken, an innocent purchaser for value, purchased the car from Bellman before the fraud was discovered. What was the result of this case?
A) Coghill was entitled to return of the vehicle because the contract with Bellman was void.
B) Coghill was entitled to return of the vehicle because the contract with Bellman was voidable by Coghill.
C) Hyken was entitled to the vehicle because a person who procures title through fraud receives voidable title and is able to transfer good title to a bona fide purchaser.
D) Hyken was entitled to the vehicle because although a person who procures title through fraud receives a void title, the person guilty of fraud may transfer good title to a bona fide purchaser.
E) The car was ordered sold with Coghill and Hyken to split the proceeds.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q1: The terms FOB and FAS mean the
Q2: Samantha transfers a void title to Balley
Q3: Carlinda sold Arun a set of tires.
Q4: A(n) _ under the UCC is defined
Q6: A contract is a sale-or-return contract if
Q7: Common law states that when a seller
Q8: Title is the legal ownership of a
Q9: The right to insure goods against any
Q10: If a buyer and seller execute a
Q11: _ is title acquired from someone who
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents