Search results
6 results
Sort by:
Who Suffers the Financial Consequences of Identity Theft: the Bank v. Banking Customer?
Compass Bank v. Calleja-Ahedo, 62 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 260 (2018), No. 17-0065, 2018 LEXIS 1314 (Tex. Dec. 21, 2018)
Whether UCC Article 4 in Texas Preempts Common Law Fraud and Breach of Contract Claims in the Relationship Between a Bank and Its Customer
Am. Dream Team, Inc. v. Citizens State Bank, 481 S.W.3d 725 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2015, pet. denied)
Dude, Where’s My Car? How the Proposed Uniform Certificate of Title Act Addresses Conflicts Between the Texas Certificate of Title Act and the Uniform Commercial Code
Commonly, when purchasing a vehicle, a consumer, whom we will call Joe, goes to a dealership and looks around for an affordable and suitable vehicle. After haggling with the salesperson over the terms, making a deal, and arranging a form of payment, Joe fills out paperwork to transfer the ownership of the vehicle and pays the dealer to cover the titling expenses, which the dealer promises to send to the state certificate of title (“CT”) office so that the ownership of record may be transferred to Joe pursuant to the state’s CT law.
No Assumption By Buyer Entity of Seller Entity’s Implied Warranty of Merchantability Liability––Whether an Entity That Purchases a Manufacturer’s Assets Assumes or Agrees to Assume an Implied Warranty of Merchantability That Attached and Was Not Disclaimed When the Manufacturer Sold the Good.
The Court in Northland Industries v Kouba held that that the Buyer only assumed liabilities expressed in the Agreement. The record reflects no evidence to support that the Buyer agreed to assume the Seller’s implied warranty of merchantability. Thus, the Buyer will not be liable for beach of the implied warranty of merchantability because the Agreement failed to show that the Buyer agreed to take on such liability.
Common Law Defense to a Chargeback—Whether The UCC Right to a Chargeback Can Be Countered By the Common Law Right to an Offset When a Bank is Bound By a Wire Transfer Agreement
The Court concluded that Cadence breached the wire transfer agreement by using provisional credit funds and failing to transfer funds from a “collected balance,” using Elizondo’s construction of the term. Therefore, the breach entitled Elizondo to offset Cadence’s chargeback by the amount of overdrawn funds as a matter of law.
UCC and Banking Law Update
This is the slide deck for the PowerPoint presentation.