Last updated: July 13, 2019
Topic: BusinessAgriculture
Sample donated:

Mechanic’s Lien. Ironwood Exploration. Inc. ( Ironwood ) owned a rental on oil and gas belongings located in Duchesne County. Utah. Ironwood contracted to hold Lantz Drilling and Exploration Company. Inc. ( Lantz ) . bore an oil well on the belongings. Therafter. Lantz rented equipment from Graco Fishing and Rental Tools. Inc. ( Graco ) . for usage in boring the well. Graco billed Lantz for these leases. but Lantz did non pay. Graco filed a notice of mechanic’s lien on the well in the sum of $ 19. 766. Ironwood. which had paid Lantz. refused to pay Graco. Graco sued to forclose on its mechanic’s lien. Who wins? Graco Fising and Rental Tools. Inc. v. Ironwood Exploration. Inc. . P. 2d 1074. 98 Utah Adv. Rep. 28. Web 1998 Utal Lexis 125 ( Supreme Court of Utah )

Foreclosure Atlantic Ocean Kampgrounds. Inc. ( Atlantic ) borrowed $ 60. 000 from Camden National Bank ( Camden National ) and executed a note and mortgage on belongings located in Camden. Maine. procuring that sum. Maine permits rigorous foreclosure. Atlantic defaulted on the loan. and Camden commenced rigorous foreclosure proceedings pursuant to province jurisprudence. After the annual period of salvation. Camden National sold the belongings to a 3rd party in an sum in surplus of the mortgage and costs of the foreclosure proceeding. Atlantic sued to retrieve the excess from Camden National. Who wins? Atlantic Ocean Kampgrounds. Inc. v. Camden National Bank. 473 A. 2d 884. Web 1984 Me. Lexis 666 ( Supreme Judicial Court of Maine )

Redemption Elmer and Arletta Hans. hubby and married woman. owned a package of existent belongings in Illinois. They borrowed $ 100. 000 from First Illinois National Bank ( First Illinois ) and executed a note and mortgage to First Illinois. doing the existent estate security for the loan. The security understanding authorized First Illinois to take ownership of the belongings upon the happening of a default and required the Hanses to put to death a quitclaim title in favour of First Illinois. The province of Illinois recognizes the philosophy of salvation. When the Hanses defaulted on the loan. First Illinois filed a case. seeking an order necessitating the Hanses to instantly put to death a quitclaim title to the belongings. Must the Hanses execute the quitclaim title before the foreclosure sale? First Illinois National Bank v. Hans. 143 Ill. App. 3d 1033. 493 N. E. 2d 1171. Web 1986 Ill. App. Lexis 2287 ( Appellate Court of Illinois )

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Consumer Leasing Joyce Givens entered into a rental understanding with Rent-A-Center. Inc. ( Rent-A-Center ) . whereby she rented a saloon and an amusement centre. The understanding provided that she must pay in progress to maintain the furniture for periods of one hebdomad or one month. Givens could end the understanding at any clip by doing agreements for the furniture’s return. Givens made payments for four months. After that. she failed to do any farther payments but continued to posses the belongings. When Rent-A-Center became cognizant that Givens had moved and taken the furniture with her. in misdemeanor of the rental understanding. it filed a condemnable ailment against her. Thereafter. Givens agreed to return the furniture. and Rent-A-Center dropped the charges. After Rent-A-Center recovered the furniture. Givens sued the company. claiming that the understanding she had signed violated the Consumer Leasing Act. Who wins? Givens v. Rent-A-Center. Inc. . 720 F. Supp. 160. Web 1988 U. S. Dist. Lexis 16039 ( United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama )

Fair Debt Collection Stanley M. Juras was a pupil at Montana State University ( MSU ) . During his four old ages at MSU. Juras took out several pupil loans from the school under the National Direct Student Loan plan. By the clip Juras left MSU. he owed the school more than $ 5. 000. Juras defaulted on these loans. and MSU assigned the debt to Aman Collection Services. Inc. ( Aman ) . for intents of aggregation. Aman obtained a judgement against Juras in a Montana province tribunal for $ 5. 015 on the debt and $ 1. 920 in involvement and attorneys’ fees. Juras. who at the clip lived in California. still refused to pay these sums.

Subsequently. a frailty president of Aman. Mr. Gloss. telephoned Juras twice in California before 8:00 A. M. Pacific Standard Time. Gloss told Juras that if he did non pay the debt. he would non have a college transcript. Juras sued Aman. claiming that the telephone calls violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gloss testified at test that he made the calls before 8:00 A. M. because he had forgotten the difference in clip zones between California and Aman’s offices in South Dakota. Who wins? Juras v. Aman Collection Services. Inc. . 829 F. 2d 739. Web 1987 U. S. App. Lexis 12888 ( United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit )

Financing Statement C & A ; H Trucking. Inc. ( C & A ; H ) . borrowed $ 19. 747. 56 from S & A ; D Petroleum Company. Inc. ( S & A ; D ) . S & A ; D hired Clifton M. Tamsett to fix a security understanding calling C & A ; H as the debitor and giving S & A ; D a security involvement in a new Mack truck. The security understanding prepared by Tamsett declared that the collateral besides secured: any other liability or liability of the debitor to the secured party direct or indirect. absolute or contingent. due or to go due. now bing or afterlife arising. including all future progresss or loans which may be made at the option of the secured party.

Tamsett failed to register a funding statement or the executed understanding with the appropriate authorities office. C & A ; H later paid off the original debt. and S & A ; D continued to widen new recognition to C & A ; H. Two old ages subsequently. when C & A ; H owed S & A ; D more than $ 17. 000. S & A ; D learned that ( 1 ) C & A ; H was insolvent. ( 2 ) the Mack truck had been sold. and ( 3 ) Tamsett had failed to register the security understanding. Does S & A ; D have a security involvement in the Mack truck? Is Tamsett apt to S & A ; D? S & A ; D Petroleum Company. Inc. v. Tamsett. 144 A. D. 2d 849. 534 N. Y. S. 2d 800. Web 1988 N. Y. App. Div. Lexis 11258 ( Supreme Court of New York )

Precedence of Security Agreements World Wide Tracers. Inc. ( World Wide ) . sold certain of its assets and belongingss. including equipment. furniture. uniforms. histories receivable. and contract rights. to Metropolitan Protection. Inc. ( Metropolitan ) . To procure payment of the purchase monetary value. Metropolitan executed a security understanding and funding statement in favour of World Wide. The understanding. which was filed with the Minnesota secretary of province. stated that “all of the belongings listed on Exhibit A ( equipment. furniture. and fixtures ) together with any belongings of the debitor acquired after” the understanding was executed was indirect. One and one-half old ages subsequently. State Bank ( Bank ) loaned money to Metropolitan. which executed a security understanding and funding statement in favour of Bank. Bank filed the funding statement with the Minnesota secretary of state’s office one month subsequently.

The funding statement contained the undermentioned linguistic communication depicting the collateral: “All histories receivable and contract rights owned or afterlife acquired. All equipment now owned and hereafter acquired. including but non limited to. office furniture and uniforms. ” When Metropolitan defaulted on its understanding with World Wide six months subsequently. World Wide brought suit. asseverating its alleged security understanding in Metropolitan’s histories receivable. Bank filed a counterclaim. asseverating its perfected security involvement in Metropolitan’s histories receivable. Who wins? World Wide Tracers. Inc. v. Metropolitan Protection. Inc. . 384 N. W. 2d 442. Web 1986 Minn. Lexis 753 ( Supreme Court of Minnesota )

27. 4 ) Precedence of Security Interests Paul High purchased assorted points of personal belongings and farm animal from William and Marilyn McGowen. To procure the purchase monetary value. High granted the Mc-Gowens a security involvement in the personal belongings and farm animal. Two and one-half months subsequently. High borrowed $ 86. 695 from Nebraska State Bank ( Bank ) and signed a promissory note. allowing Bank a security involvement in all his farm merchandises. including but non limited to all his farm animal. Bank instantly perfected its security understanding by registering a funding statement with the county clerk in Dakota County. Nebraska. The McGowens perfected their security involvement by registering a funding statement and security understanding with the county clerk three months after the Bank filed its funding statement. Three old ages subsequently. High defaulted on the duties owed to the McGowens and Bank. Whose security involvement has priority? McGowen v. Nebraska State Bank. 229
Neb. 471. 427 N. W. 2d 772. Web 1988 Neb. Lexis 290 ( Supreme Court of Nebraska )

Purchase Money Security Interest Prior Brothers. Inc. ( PBI ) began financing its agriculture operations through Bank of California. N. A. ( Bank ) . Bank’s loans were secured by PBI’s equipment and after-acquired belongings. Bank instantly filed a funding statement. honing its security involvement. Two old ages subsequently. PBI contacted the International Harvester franchise in Sunny-side. Washington. about the purchase of a new tractor. A retail installment contract for a theoretical account 1066 International Harvester tractor was executed.

PBI took bringing of the tractor “on blessing. ” holding that if it decided to buy the tractor. it would inform the franchise of its purpose and would direct a $ 6. 000 down payment. The franchise received a $ 6. 000 cheque. The franchise instantly filed a funding statement refering the tractor. Subsequently. when PBI went into receivership. the franchise filed a ailment. inquiring the tribunal to declare that its purchase money security involvement in the tractor had precedence over Bank’s security involvement. Does it? In the Matter of Prior Brothers. Inc. . 29 Wn. App. 905. 632 P. 2d 522. Web 1981 Wash. App. Lexis 2507 ( Court of Appeals of Washington )

Buyer in the Ordinary Course of Business Heritage Ford Lincoln Mercury. Inc. ( Heritage ) was in the concern of selling new autos. Heritage entered into an understanding with Ford Motor Credit Company ( Ford ) . whereby Ford extended a go oning line of recognition to Heritage to buy vehicles. Heritage granted Ford a purchase money security involvement in all motor vehicles it owned and thenceforth acquired and in all returns from the sale of such motor vehicles.

Ford instantly filed its funding statement with the secretary of province. When the franchise experienced fiscal problem. two Heritage officers decided to duplicate finance certain new autos by publishing trader documents to themselves and obtaining funding for two new autos from First National Bank & A ; Trust Company of El Dorado ( Bank ) . The loan returns were deposited in the dealership’s history to assist with its fiscal troubles. The autos were available for sale. When the franchise closed its doors and turned over the auto stock list to Ford. Bank alleged that it had precedence over Ford because the Heritage officers were purchasers in the ordinary class of concern. Who wins? First National Bank and Trust Company of El Dorado v. Ford Motor Credit Company. 231 Kan. 431. 646 P. 2d 1057. Web 1982 Kan. Lexis 280 ( Supreme Court of Kansas )