Each question has multiple choice answers after the question. There is only 1 right answer for each problem.

27. The Lake Project - a nonprofit organization that works to preserve waterways - ordered $16,000 worth of office supplies from Office Supplier, a large web-based business located in California. The Lake Project is regarded as a "non-merchant" but the seller is, of course, a merchant. When various shipments of office supplies were delivered they contained an invoice that stated any disputes must be filed in Marin County, California. The forum selection clause was not set out on the website (not even in the "I agree" language that no one looks at!). For reasons that are not important, much of the supplies delivered to The Lake Project were not acceptable. (See Pages 4071408 of textbook / Additional Terms - Rules When One Party or Both Parties are Nonmerchants.] Office Supplier refused to return the money to the buyer. Lake Project is located in Minnesota. Is it required to sue the seller in California? (Yes, Lake Project must sue in California since the forum selection clause is binding / No, the forum selection clause was not part of the parties' original agreement and Lake Side can file the case in Minnesota) 28. Fred Frauder purchased a car from Emma Nice for $11,000. Fred gave Emma a check and she signed over the car's title and registration to him. Fred's check bounced (was not honored) and Emma tried to find Fred and her car. After a week she finally located her car but learned Fred had sold it to Gary Gullible for $12,000. Gary had no clue Fred had "paid" for the car with a bad check. Assuming Gary is a good faith purchaser of the car, can Emma get the car back from him? (Yes - it is her car and Fred never paid for it / No - the law protects the good faith purchaser and Emma will need to go after Fred for her money) 29. What is the rational for the above situation / result? (Emma was in the best position to have avoided the problem - she should have not signed over the car until she knew the check would clear / Since Fred had not paid for the car he gave no consideration or value for it so it was a "void" contract - Gary cannot obtain greater rights than what Fred had)