Tom purchases an IBM from Jonh, a thief, for $550. Later, Tom reconditions the typewritten and sells it to Larry for $750. When the original owner tracks down the stolen typewritten, Larry sues Tom under the theory of

a. warranty of title
b. warranty of merchantability
c. express warranty
d. warranty against infringement

I think D

Beacause Larry is Tom's best friend, Larry sues Jonh for his loss. Larry will
a. win on theory of warranty of title or win in theory of strict liability?
b. Lose because there is no privity of contract
c. lose, Jonh was a thief and made no warranty of life
d. lose, there was a disclaimer

I think B

You are right on the second one. On the first, what is warranty of title?

Warranty of title is an implied warranty made by a seller that the seller ha good and valid title to the goods sold and that the transfer of the title is rightful.

so, Larry bought somethign from Tom, and Tom did not have a right to sell it.

i guess..so do you think D is correct?

For the first question, the correct answer is option A, warranty of title.

To explain why, let's break down the options:

a. Warranty of title: This warranty states that the seller (Tom) has the legal right to sell the goods and that the goods are free from any claims or liens. Larry, as the buyer, has the right to sue Tom if the goods are not rightfully owned by Tom.

b. Warranty of merchantability: This warranty implies that the goods being sold by a merchant (Tom) are fit for their ordinary purpose and of a quality acceptable in the market. However, in this scenario, Larry is not questioning the quality of the typewriter but rather its ownership.

c. Express warranty: An express warranty is a specific promise made by the seller (Tom) about certain qualities or characteristics of the goods. Since the question does not mention any specific promise made by Tom regarding the typewriter, this option is not applicable.

d. Warranty against infringement: This warranty applies to intellectual property rights. Since the typewriter is being discussed in the context of physical goods, this option does not apply either.

Therefore, the correct answer is option A, warranty of title, as Larry can sue Tom for his loss based on the fact that Tom sold him a stolen typewriter.

For the second question, the correct answer is option B, "Lose because there is no privity of contract."

To explain why, let's go through the options:

a. Win on the theory of warranty of title or win on the theory of strict liability: Larry cannot win based on the theory of warranty of title because the stolen typewriter was initially bought by Tom from John, not Larry. The theory of strict liability is not applicable either, as Larry was not the one who sold the typewriter to Tom.

b. Lose because there is no privity of contract: Privity of contract refers to the direct relationship between parties involved in a contract. In this case, there is no direct contract between Larry and John, as John is not the one who sold the typewriter to Larry. Therefore, Larry would lose the case based on this reason.

c. Lose, John was a thief and made no warranty of life: While it is true that John was a thief and did not provide any warranty, Larry cannot sue John directly because he did not buy the typewriter from him.

d. Lose, there was a disclaimer: The question does not mention any disclaimer being made by any party, so this option is not applicable.

In conclusion, the correct answer is option B, lose because there is no privity of contract. Larry cannot sue John directly as he did not purchase the typewriter from him.