1. Alfino borrowed money from Yakutsk and agreed in writing to pay a rate of interest higher than that allowed by local law. Later, when Alfino was called upon to pay, he refused, claiming that the agreement was void because of the usurious rate. Yakutsk, the lender, sued to collect. Yakutsk agreed to accept the legal rate of interest and felt he was entitled to collect the debt. Alfino believed that the entire debt was void because of the illegality of the original agreement. In view of Yakutsk’s willingness to accept the legal rate of interest, can Alfino be compelled to pay?
2. Morton Salt Company, a large producer of table salt, had an established price scale for its product based on the quantity of salt ordered in a 12-month period. Thus, a firm that ordered a substantial quantity of salt paid less per package than a store that ordered a smaller quantity. Acting in response to complaints from small firms, the Federal Trade Commission investigated and determined that the lowest price offered by Morton Salt Company, although available to all customers, was practical only for five national customers who purchased in sufficiently large quantities to benefit from the lowest prices established. Would the alleged price discrimination be covered under the Robinson-Patman Act?
3. Jasons decided to declare bankruptcy because his financial situation was desperate and his only property was a nearly new car worth about $ 14,000. In an attempt to conceal the value of his property, he sold the car to his friend Dane for $ 2,000. He planned to buy the car back from Dane when the bankruptcy proceedings were concluded. Is the sale of the car a valid contract? Why or why not?