Answer:
Steve has no legal recourse against Jonathan but he can try to take action against Knell Watches.
Explanation:
The entrustment rule says that entrusting goods to a seller who deals in goods of that kind, gives that seller the power to transfer those goods and all rights to a buyer in the ordinary course of business. Entrusting includes giving your goods to the seller and leaving goods that have already been bought with the seller, with the intention of picking the goods up or having them delivered at a later stage.
Here Steve cannot claim back his watch from Jonathan because he gave the watch to Knell Watches willingly. Jonathan also bought the watch from Kevin in good faith, he had no idea that the watch had been stolen from Knell. Kevin sold the watch to him in good faith and he had no reason to doubt that the watch really belonged to Kevin because they are friends. if, however, someone else had taken the watch in to Knell Watches on behalf of Steve, then he would be able to get the watch back from Jonathan but he can't now because he took the watch in himself. Knell was also deceived by Kevin and so Jonathan is protected because of that according to Uniform Commercial Code.
D because it seams most logical
Answer:
A. It is likely that she would win on the claim because she does not seek to use the photographs in a business pursuit.
Explanation:
In fair use act, <em><u>which is the copying of any given copyrighted material done for a limited purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize e.t.c,</u></em> the major aim is to prevent the copying of the materilas for financial gains. Such copying can be done without permission from the copyright owner.
She could likely win based on this argument as a result of her trying to copy only few copies of the pictures from the original pictures without any aim of monetizing her copies.
<em>Since it is going to be done for limited purpose, she is within her right of fair use if she decided to go ahead without the photographer's permisssion.</em>
