Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Stedman
Facts
At issue is the fact that a person named Stedman drew a number of forged checks. The money belonged to the American Lung Association. However, Stedman appropriated the money for herself to the tune of about $130,000. The American Lung Association had an insurance policy to cover losses of this nature, at least to a degree. To that end, Traveler’s covered the losses of the American Lung Association (Court Listener, 2018).
Issue
The issue in this case is the fact that Travelers (the insurer of the ALA’s funds) could go against Stedman personally for the checks and money that were stolen. Because Travelers lost the money on the insurance payout, they wanted to recover the money from Stedman, as that is the person who stole the funds (Court Listener, 2018).
Decision
Part of the case involved the fact that Merrill Lynch, a co-defendant that faced liability for the funds alongside Stedman, won on some of the checks (Court Listener, 2018).
Reasons
It was generally held that the issuing bank, more than anyone, was responsible for honoring (or not honoring) the checks, even with the ill intentions and behavior of Ms. Stedman. The group two checks were...
The crossclaim was ordered when it came to the contribution and breach of presentment warranties. However, the claim related to the indemnity on those same group two checks were denied. Also relevant was the burden of the depositing bank. That depositing bank has to ensure that the presenter and the relevant endorsement were in order (Court Listener, 2018).
VonHoldt Jr. v. Barba & Barba Construction
Facts
The plaintiff hired the defendant to do a multi-level addition to a single family residence in Glenview, Illinois. The projected size of the addition was to be 3,200 square feet. This was in addition to the existing structure, which was about 2,300 square feet. The addition was seemingly completed. However, the homeowner found a number of ostensible flaws and other issues with the finished product. This included deflections in the floors. This was partially hidden by the carpet. However, it was discovered nonetheless (FindLaw, 2018).
Issue
The primary issue is whether the house and its construction was in violation of a warranty of habitability. Meaning, there was a question as to the liability that the construction company had, if any, regarding the flaws in the construction. In short, there…
Issues Presented or Questions of Law: 1) Did the SBL agreement constitute the contract between the parties? 2) Was Plaintiffs' case barred by the parole evidence rule? 3) Should the trial court have sustained Defendants' demurrer to Plaintiffs' case? Holding / Rule of Law: 1) The SBL agreement did not constitute the contract between the parties. The contracts were formed when Plaintiffs accepted Defendants offer and tendered their consideration. Therefore, the SBL agreement and addendum
Legal Brief: Hotjox Magazine Facts: Mark Studley (Studley), an Olympic swimmer, was featured on the cover of Hotjox magazine, a magazine targeted primarily at gay males. The picture was in the public domain. The magazine cover had the headline "Olympic Hunks Exposed" and said, "12 Sizzling Centerfolds Ready to Score with You," "Holy Speedo! Hot Athletic Buns!" And "Mark Studley, Olympic 2000's Best Body." The only image of Studley inside the
Legal Briefs Title and Citation: Suggs v. Norris. No. 364 S.E. 2nd 159. Court of Appeals North Carolina. 2 February 1988 Type of Action: Civil and Contractual Facts of the Case: Darlene Suggs cohabited with Norris, but remained unmarried. During their time together she worked with him as a partner in his produce business and, according to witnesses, was quite instrumental in the success of said business. Suggs also took care of Norris
Legal Brief: Anthony Labriola v. Pollard Group Anthony Alan Labriola v. Pollard Group, Inc., WA Supreme Court, 2004, No. 74002-0 Whether a 2002 noncompete agreement negotiated after the employee had been hired and without independent consideration is enforceable. SUBSTANTIVE FACTS: Five years after beginning employment as a sales person the employer required the employee sign a noncompete agreement in 2002. In exchange the employee was allowed to remain employed. After the noncompete agreement was signed
Legal Brief The author preparing this brief is asked to defend against the banning of a book on the grounds that it is obscene and thus it should be barred from sale and distribution in the public sphere. The laws and standards surrounding obscenity are vague, subjective and impossible to reliably and consistently enforce in a manner that is even-handed and objective. As such, the banning of a book, movie or
When neither elected to do so, however, there was a violation of the New York Penal Code, leading to the consideration of their guilt or innocence. Implications Under Article 20 of New York Penal Law While the condemnation of a victim is not a viable defense, the implications for Bluto and his obligations under Article 20 deserves exploration. Just as Duty of Retreat applied to Popeye and Olive, it likewise applied