Sources are not required. Try to use your opinions in your responses. After responding to the questions, you also have to respond your opinions to one Student’s post. These are short responses.
WEEK FIVE: June 23-29 – THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, MISREPRESENTATIONS, FRAUD, PERFORMANCE, REMEDIES
MISREPRESENTATION
Linda Lorenzo bought Lurlene Noel’s home in 1988 without having it inspected. The basement started leaking in 1989. In 1991, Lorenzo has the paneling removed from the basement walls and discovered that the walls were bowed inward and that the cracks had been caulked and painted over before the paneling was installed. He concluded that the walls were “structurally unsound”. Does Lorenzo have a cause of action against Noel? If so what? And will he win?
THIRD PARTY RIGHTS
Complete the Critical Thinking Case 10.1 on page 242.
Why is important to determine if the plaintiff is an incidental or intended beneficiary. Be sure to include recovery remedies in your answer.
PERFORMANCE AND DISCHARGE
Larry Lee’s 1985 Lamborghini was stolen, and by the time Lee recovered the car, it had been extensively damaged. The car was insured by Farmers Insurance Co. of Washington under a policy providing comprehensive coverage, including car theft. A provision in the policy stated that the coverage for theft damages was subject to certain terms and conditions, including the condition that any person claiming coverage under the policy must allow Farmers “to inspect and appraise the damage vehicle before its repair or disposal.” Lee, without notifying Farmers and without giving Farmers an opportunity to inspect the vehicle sold the car to a wholesale car dealer. Farmers then denied the coverage, and Lee brought suit to recover for the damages caused to his car by the theft. Does Lee have a valid claim against the insurance company?
