Question

In the opening scenario with the con artist and the cattle, we learned that the original owner would be left out in the cold under the UCC. Is this a fair result? Would it be better to require Vandermeer and the buyer in Omaha to share the loss?

 

 

Answer 1

In the given case, UCC has given the verdict in favor of buyer in O based on the arguments that buyer had genuinely made an investment by buying the cattle. It made purchase with little suspicion on V, the con man and paid the price.

 

Though, if DQ files a case in the court it will get a better verdict based on the following facts:

1. V had made sufficient ground posing as a buyer, thus he will be able to convince DQ that he is a genuine customer.

2. Also, V had paid them a forged traveler’s cheque as promised and took possession of the goods.

 

Thus, DQ had sufficient ground to be convinced that he is a genuine customer and offered him the cattle in good faith. However, he broke promise and he is liable to pay them back the amount charged.

 

Here, court cannot order both V and buyer in O to bear the loss to QQ equally as buyer is also victim who had paid V the whole sum by becoming convinced that he is a genuine trader of horses.

DQ had sufficient ground to be convinced that he is a genuine customer and offered him the cattle in good faith.