IX$.$ Chapter Problems

kyne was a "betting commissioner." He accepted bets, held the stakes, issued receipts and charged tho for doing so$.$ For some bets made he would cover the amount by making off$-$setting bets with free ind $$10,000$ of his own money. Prior to paying $$3,115\mathrm{.}00.$ Kyne had covered these and other the ${?}^{10,}$ lish paternity and for support. Other betters previously recovered by Kyne's son in a lawsuit pestab claimed their winnings from the $$7,702\mathrm{.}87$ acquire paid with the remaining amount. The three betters against Kyne because of illegality, but claim that recler therefore, cannot use the illegality defense again that Kyne's son was not a party to the illegal act and, the illegality defense against them. Who wins and why?

Ray$-$Suzuki was a corporation consisting of two divisions, Ray's Tennis Shop on University Avenue in Hillcrest and RAYCO, a world$-$wide mail order tennis business. Ray$-$Suzuki kept the shop and sold RAYCO with "seller's agreement not to compete in the same type of mail order business in the United states." The seller subsequently engaged in mail order sales claiming that the promise not to compete was invalid because it was too broad going beyond the "county or counties, city or cities" territorial limits of Business and Professions Code section $16601.$ Does the fact the promise not to compete covers the United States make it invalid? Why or why not?

Antonia Origlia, a wine grower, agreed to pay a commission to U$.$ Grossini if he located a buyer for her $39,000$ gallons of wine at $50$ cents per gallon. He located the plaintiffs, who agreed to purchase the wine at those prices, agreed to pay $$1,000$ down and the balance upon delivery, with delivery in the middle of March. He sent their written agreement and $$1,000$ check to Origlia for signing. She sent the check and agreement back unsigned stating it was not convenient for her to keep the wine until March and insure it until that time, and she demanded payment in advance at the time of making the sale. Plaintiffs sued for breach of a contract made with Origlia through Grossini. Who wins and why?

Terms