Peters and Lane enter into an oral agreement to create a military museum using military memorabilia that Peters and Lane have gathered over the years. Before this can take place, Peters dies. Peters’ son sues Lane for trespass to personal property and conversion, alleging that Lane came into Peters’ house and took Peters’ memorabilia and commingled his own military memorabilia with that of Peters’ so that it is extremely difficult to separate Peters’ property. If proven, will Peters’ son be more likely to push for conversion or trespass to personal property? (Peters v. Lane, 2005 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4052 (Ct. App. Cal., 4th App. Dist., Div. 3 2005))
Answer to relevant QuestionsJay’s parents granted Jay title to their home. In return, Jay entered into an agreement with his parents stating that the coveyancing agreement was created "to protect and preserve an interest in the premises for the ...1. What is the similarity between the court’s position and the theory of respondeat superior? 2. Owners and executives are held accountable for the actions of their employees that they direct. Should this accountability ...1. It was the state’s different filing system that allowed the court to reach a conclusion in this case that was different from the decision reached in Kinderknecht. Does the court’s conclusion make sense in this case? ...What is the role of a trustee? Donna suffered food poisoning at Skewers Restaurant, located inside Northside Mall. Northside exercised considerable control over all the tenants in the mall by regulating the hours of operation, restricting the kinds of ...
Post your question