1. The legal rules in the UCC that determine which party in a sales contract bears the financial burden in the case the goods are destroyed in transit are referred to as:
2. The legal term for the right of ownership of a good is?
3. On January 2, Laila University (LU) signed an agreement to purchase 1,000 baseballs from Regional Sports Equipment (RSE), and the parties agree that it is a destination contract. RSE arranges for the baseballs to be placed with a local delivery company with instructions for delivery to LU. While en route to LU, the delivery truck is in an accident, and the baseballs are dstroyed. Who had title at the time of the accident?
4. Unless the parties agree otherwise, the UCC characterizes any agreement for the sale of goods and delivery as a what contract?
5. When one party in a contract for the sale of goods has reasonable grounds to believe that another party will not perform, the UCC provides that party with the right to demand what of performance?
6. On January 2, Laila University (LU) signed an agreement to purchase 1,000 baseballs from Regional Sport Equipment (RSE). RSE arranges for the baseballs to be placed with a local delivery company with instructions for delivery to LU. While en route to LU, the delivery truck is in an accident, and the baseballs are destroyed. The parties do not have any express agreement as to risk of loss. Who had title at the time of the accident?
7. On January 2, Laila University (LU) signed an agreement to purchase and pick up 1,000 baseballs from Regional sports Equipment (RSE). RSE arranges for the baseballs to be marked "Sold" and placed in the RSE warehouse for pickup by LU's athletic department crew. Before the LU truck arrives, the baseballs are stolen from the warehouse. Who had title at the time of loss?
8. Buyer and seller enter into a contract that provides for delivery of goods at the buyer's place of business. The contract stated, "Seller assumes all risk until goods are delivered at destination." The parties have entered into a what contract?
9. T/F: The case of Mattison v. Johnston held that competition is not a valid excuse to break a restrictive covenant that was created to avoid just such practices and that inducing someone to break a restrictive covenant is tortious conduct
10. T/F: Ms. Bobbin, your ethics teacher, is a first year professor, just out of school and she is very tough and demanding. You've done poorly on the first two tests and you think it's her fault. Someone tells you that she has a criminal past and without verification, you spread this allegation. In fact, Ms. Bobbin has been a model citizen and never broken the law. As a result of your actions, she is put on probation pending an investigation. She cannot sue for defamation because as a professor, she is a public figure and your conduct was intentional but not a careless disregard of the truth or with malice.