Author Topic: Opening Arguments #TTTBE  (Read 43368 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13325
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #870 on: March 14, 2020, 09:17:29 PM »
So, the man had personal liability on the mortgage  and the mortgage was secured by the property and the mortgage was assumed by the purchaser.

I’m going with C
« Last Edit: March 15, 2020, 03:52:24 PM by CarbShark »
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4320
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #871 on: March 15, 2020, 03:21:47 PM »
This one is confusing to me because I don't know why the man would have made the payments at all. It was my understanding that assumption of a loan was only allowed with the permission of the lender and that the original buyer was released from all responsibilities once the mortgage was assumed. Any foreclosure should not have affected the man himself or his credit.

I would say don't look at it as why would someone do this but as a test question on the law.

 In reality the lender I would think would have the loan paid off from the original lender and have the new owner get a completely new loan with the new owners.
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8784
  • Fanatically anti-bigot
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #872 on: March 15, 2020, 05:47:24 PM »
In reality the lender I would think would have the loan paid off from the original lender and have the new owner get a completely new loan with the new owners.

No, assuming the payments of a loan is a legitimate condition in a sales contract.  Buyers may wish to do so because the initial loan was made on terms that they cannot obtain currently.  But my understanding is that assumptions require the agreement of the lender and that when the lender allows a buyer to assume payments all responsibility for the loan passes to the new owner. However, it doesn't sound like the new owner actually has a proper loan agreement with the finance of the property; instead, he has simply agreed to make the payments as a condition of the contract. Perhaps the bank wouldn't have allowed the new buyer to assume payments legally. The original borrower is therefore still on the hook for the payments, and the new owner has only a contractual obligation to pay. I don't know what the implications of that are, though.
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13325
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #873 on: March 15, 2020, 06:12:32 PM »
In reality the lender I would think would have the loan paid off from the original lender and have the new owner get a completely new loan with the new owners.

No, assuming the payments of a loan is a legitimate condition in a sales contract.  Buyers may wish to do so because the initial loan was made on terms that they cannot obtain currently.  But my understanding is that assumptions require the agreement of the lender and that when the lender allows a buyer to assume payments all responsibility for the loan passes to the new owner. However, it doesn't sound like the new owner actually has a proper loan agreement with the finance of the property; instead, he has simply agreed to make the payments as a condition of the contract. Perhaps the bank wouldn't have allowed the new buyer to assume payments legally. The original borrower is therefore still on the hook for the payments, and the new owner has only a contractual obligation to pay. I don't know what the implications of that are, though.
I’m thinking if you have personal liability for a secured loan and the loan is in default or they foreclos,  but don’t get enough to pay off the debt you’re on the hook for the balance.

In this case the buyer assumed the debt but does that mean the man is released from his liability? That’s the first question.

The second question is the buyer is obligated to repay the payments made on their behalf without their consent?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Offline Swagomatic

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2764
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #874 on: March 16, 2020, 02:15:21 PM »
I'm thinking it may be a No answer.  I going to guess A, but I really have no idea.
Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.
---George Bernard Shaw

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8784
  • Fanatically anti-bigot
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #875 on: March 16, 2020, 03:19:57 PM »
I’m going to guess B, but I have absolutely no confidence.
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4320
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #876 on: March 17, 2020, 11:32:40 AM »
Answer #170

Spoiler
[close]
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10027
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #877 on: March 17, 2020, 01:32:46 PM »
Spoiler

Since I don't know what the "law of suretyship" is, I'd have been unable to even begin to guess at the answer. I suppose in an actual exam it's better to guess at random than not answer, as with 4 choices you have a 25% chance of getting it right, but I'm happy here just admitting that I didn't understand the problem and still do not understand the answer.  :)
[close]
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4320
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #878 on: March 28, 2020, 05:54:20 PM »
Ok I hope we all are rested from our break in TTTBE. Here is the next question

Question #171

Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline xenu

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 4320
  • Chicago Blackhawks 2010,13,15 Stanley Cup Champion
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #879 on: March 28, 2020, 05:59:58 PM »
I really don't know. I want to say no because it seems like the correct answer. It's just that none of the answers under no I feel are correct. #1 and #2 reasons I just don't like. I like #1 the best,but it doesn't feel right. I don't like yes as an answer but I like the reasons better on question #3. I would think that crop insurance would be the way to go on this.
So of the 2 I like the answer #1 and #3 best of the two. I am going to go with
Spoiler
#1
[close]
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13325
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #880 on: March 28, 2020, 06:48:36 PM »

Spoiler
The farmer notified rancher that the crop was ripe, and it was destroyed a month later by hail. The question is was the rancher in breach of the contract?

If the contract had said as soon as it's ripe, then yes. But it just said when it's ripe, and that could mean anytime after it's first ripe and before it goes to seed.

So I'm going with A, because, presumably, the crop was still ripe when the hailstorm hit.

Not B because even if the farmer had warned the rancher that doesn't change the terms of the contract.

Not C because the rancher did not breach the contract

Not D because the rancher did not breach the contract
[close]
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Online The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *****
  • Posts: 8784
  • Fanatically anti-bigot
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #881 on: March 28, 2020, 07:56:53 PM »
Spoiler
I think that the contract can be breached even if no specific time was established if the delay was unreasonable in the circumstances. The court will consider the standards in the industry, the specific circumstances of the case, and the expectation of the parties.  I'm going with D.
[close]
Large data of text  or Mediumtext or Longtext

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10027
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #882 on: March 28, 2020, 09:56:29 PM »
Spoiler

I am going to go with C. At the time the contract was made, the rancher had reason to foresee the consequences of his breach.

I don't really like any of the answers. I thought contracts always included specific provisions in case of breach, and hail being common in the region, it would make sense to include the specific penalty for delaying the work.

I disagree with A because a time was set: "When the crop is ripe." It's not possible to be more precise because conditions can speed up or slow down ripening.

I disagree with B because the likelihood of hail is common knowledge in the region.

As for C and D, I'm a bit confused: Clearly, the rancher had reason to foresee the probable result of a delay, But if D is not correctly stating the law, then C would not apply, and if D is correctly stating the law, then it would apply regardless of C.

Or maybe the distinction between C and D is that the contractor is not responsible for all the consequences of his action unless he has reason to anticipate the result of his action.

So I'm back to where I started: C is my answer.

And the moral is: When contracting for work, include the penalty for failure to do the work. And if you're a farmer, buy crop insurance.

P.S. In all the years I lived in rural North Dakota I never remember hearing of a farmer suing another for not harvesting his wheat on time, though it was common for neighbors to help each other. But all the farmers I knew harvested their own crops, maybe because that's the only way of making sure it's done when  needed. Many of them owned airplanes and did their own crop dusting for the same reason. I briefly considered learning to fly and getting a job as a crop duster, until I learned that everyone I knew who did that had crashed at least once.

[close]
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Offline daniel1948

  • Happy Man in a Boat
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10027
  • I'd rather be paddling
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #883 on: March 28, 2020, 10:11:16 PM »

Spoiler
The farmer notified rancher that the crop was ripe, and it was destroyed a month later by hail. The question is was the rancher in breach of the contract?

If the contract had said as soon as it's ripe, then yes. But it just said when it's ripe, and that could mean anytime after it's first ripe and before it goes to seed.

So I'm going with A, because, presumably, the crop was still ripe when the hailstorm hit.

Not B because even if the farmer had warned the rancher that doesn't change the terms of the contract.

Not C because the rancher did not breach the contract

Not D because the rancher did not breach the contract
[close]

Spoiler

Emphasis mine. "Going to seed" is what you want the wheat crop to do, since it's the seeds that you harvest. You cannot harvest the wheat before it goes to seed, unless you're just harvesting the grass (wheat is a grass) for hay. I've never heard of anyone harvesting wheat for hay.

After the wheat is ripe the things that can damage it would be hail, or a really strong rain. Possibly an extended period of wet weather that causes the grain to sprout on the stalks. Or if it snows before you harvest it, since you pretty much can't harvest it in snow. For practical purposes, you want to harvest it after it's ripe ("gone to seed") and before it rains again, with hail being the worst thing short of a tornado.

[close]
“You say you love your children above all else, and yet you are stealing their future in front of their very eyes.”
-- Greta Thunberg

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13325
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Re: Opening Arguments #TTTBE
« Reply #884 on: March 28, 2020, 11:30:05 PM »

Spoiler

If the contract had said as soon as it's ripe, then yes. But it just said when it's ripe, and that could mean anytime after it's first ripe and before it goes to seed.
[close]



Emphasis mine. "Going to seed" is what you want the wheat crop to do, since it's the seeds that you harvest. You cannot harvest the wheat before it goes to seed, unless you're just harvesting the grass (wheat is a grass) for hay. I've never heard of anyone harvesting wheat for hay.

Not exactly. When a crop has gone to seed that means the grains are dropping from the plant to be seeds.

When that happens it’s too late to harvest.

There’s also a slang term based on the same concept.

There is a sweet spot between ripe and gone to seed where grains can be harvested.

I don’t know how long that lasts for wheat but for the premise posed in this question I’m assuming it’s weeks, not days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States