Case Analysis Part IV

Therefore, nondelivery of the certificate does not intervene in any way with passing the title. The same conclusion has been reached by the Court in the case of Wood Chevrolet Co. v. Bank of the Southeast3, where it was held that: …non-delivery of a certificate of title at the time of a sale does not prevent the passage of title from the seller to the buyer…. This is true even where a state’s certificate of title act provides that no title can be acquired in an automobile until the certificate of title has been issued.. In conclusion, title to the car passed to Mann at the moment of physical possesion of the car being transferred to him. CHAPTER 17 CASE 3 I believe that in this case, Frank’s Nursery Crafts, Inc. must be held liable for the damages caused to Young and it should certainly cover the damages caused to the plaintiff. Frank’s Nursery Crafts, Inc. has certainly breached the contract concluded with Young. Due to the fact that Frank’s Nursery Crafts, Inc. … v. Johnson4, the Court held that, in order to avoid the injured party not recovering her losses, Ohio law allows a damaged lost volume seller to recover its lost profits from the breached sale in addition to traditional breach of contract damages, thus applying the lost volume seller theory. According to Goldberg, V.P.,In cases in which the seller is a retailer, the conclusion is (a) yes, the seller does suffer damages, (b) the damages are the market price of the service of selling the goods, (c) the market price of selling is approximately the gross margin, (d) even though the damages are incurred, full compensation would probably be inefficient, and (e) the law ought to encourage the parties to use nonrefundable deposits as liquidated damages.5 Therefore, I believe that the Court ought to apply the lost volume seller theory in this case and, thus, reduce Young’s damages to minimum. CHAPTER 18 CASE 6 I strongly believe that the Benfers did have cause of action against the retailer – Thomas, along with the manufacturer – Town Country Mobile Homes, Inc. Thomas was the one who actually convinced the Benfers, by showing them a model mobile home, that the mobile home had the one-quarter-inch sheathing on the siding that made it better than cheaper units, by this intentionally misleading the couple and creating for them a misrepresentation on the product they were about to purchase. Moreover, Thomas, by knowingly proposing the Benfers a more expensive unit, which supposedly had the sheathing desired by the potential buyers, actually lied to them, by taking the price for a more expensive product and offering them a cheaper one. Moreover, by delivering to the purchasers the written warranty, which stated that the mobile home had the