John purchased a new Lincoln Continental automobile from Al Greene Inc., an authorized new car dealership. On the day of the sale, John made a cash down payment and signed a purchase contract and an application for the title certificate. The understanding was that John would take immediate possession of the car and return in a few days for new-car preparation and the installation of a CB radio. On the way home from the dealer, John wrecked the car. The certificate of title had not yet been issued by the state. The buyer, John, claimed that title had not yet passed because the title certificate had not yet been issued. Who must bear the loss?
Principle of law:
Decision:
Answer:
For this case of bearing the loss, the following details will be as below
Principle of Law: As per legal laws, if the purchase agreement is signed off and the possession is carried out, then the liability of the product will be of the buyer, if he had successfully get the product from the dealer as per purchase contract.
Decision: The decision in this case will be that the liability for the loss bearing will be with John only, because John has made the damage to the car after making the purchase agreement signed off, and application for the title certificate. Thus in this case dealership will not be liable for the damage bear, as the purchase agreement is signed with buyer Mr. John, and possession was given to John. So john will be responsible for the bearing the loss which had occurred on the automobile while going from the dealer to home. Ideally John should not have taken the vehicle possession, unless he had received the title certificate for the vehicle. So that he will be protected from such damaging issues.
John purchased a new Lincoln Continental automobile from Al Greene Inc., an authorized new car dealership....
Read the following Hornung v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 428 (1967), which involves the constructive receipt doctrine and how it was used to determine the year of inclusion in taxable income. How does the constructive receipt doctrine impact a cash-basis individual’s taxable income? What factors could have resulted in a different determination? 47 T.C. 428 (1967) PAUL V. HORNUNG, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Docket No. 3740-64. United States Tax Court. Filed January 27, 1967. 429*429 Michael J. Clare,...
Read the following Hornung v. Commissioner, 47 T.C. 428 (1967), which involves the constructive receipt doctrine and how it was used to determine the year of inclusion in taxable income and answer both question. How does the constructive receipt doctrine impact a cash-basis individual’s taxable income? What factors could have resulted in a different determination? 47 T.C. 428 (1967) PAUL V. HORNUNG, PETITIONER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, RESPONDENT. Docket No. 3740-64. United States Tax Court. Filed January 27, 1967....