Full Question:
Jane operates a home decorations shop selling slightly used goods. She bought a painting from Sally for the shop. Bob came into the shop and asked if the painting was by Bill, a local artist of some repute. Jane, without checking with Sally, says, "I'm sure it is" because she really did think it looked like one of Bill's paintings. Bob bought the painting. A week or so later, he took the painting by Bill's studio. Bill just laughed and said that he never painted anything that horrible. Bob took the painting back to Jane and asked for a refund. Jane refused on the basis that she never gave refunds and that Bob took the risk that the painting was not done by Bill. Should Bob sue in small claims court, who will likely win and why?
a. Bob, on the basis of negligent misrepresentation
b. Bob, on the basis of innocent misrepresentation.
c. Bob, on the basis of a unilateral mistake.
d. Jane, on the basis that Bob accepted the risk of loss.
e. Jane, both on the basis that Bob accepted the risk of loss and that he agreed by an oral contract to purchase the painting.
Answer:
a. Bob, on the basis of negligent misrepresentation
Explanation:
Negligent misrepresentation
occurs when someone makes a statement without making sure this statement is based on true facts. Negligent misrepresentation happens when a person may not lie directly (saying something knowing it to be untrue), but makes a statement about something with no factual backing. Bob will likely win here because Jane "assumed" the painting was from Bill without confirming it was.
The owners of the property claimed the city had violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which forbade the government from seizing private property without just compensation for public use.
<h3>What was the central tenet in Kelo v. City of New London?</h3>
The U.S. Supreme Court concluded in Kelo v. City of New London that New London could acquire privately owned lands for private development as part of its economic revitalization strategy.
The rationality of this project was The property owners contended that the city had violated the Amendment's takings provision, which guarantees that the government will not take private property for public use without just compensation.
Learn more about Kelo v. City of New London:
brainly.com/question/10992257
#SPJ1
Answer: Option B - False
Explanation:
It's "Theory Z" that integrates common business practices in the United States and Japan into one middle-ground framework appropriate for use in the United States while transaction analysis
Transactional analysis (TA) is a theory of modern psychology where social transactions are analyzed purposely to determine the state of the a patient's ego and as a means of understanding his/her behavioral trait.
Answer:
It also loosens and churnes the soil, allowing nutrients and minerals to be deposited evenly, creating a very fertile soil. Disadvantages of an Earthquakes! An earthquake causes course death and destruction of roads and houses and buildings.
Explanation:
refer to top
The war with France divided the Federalists and hurt John Adams chance for re-election.