Chat with AI
Business Law 12th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller ,Frank Cross
Edition 12ISBN: 978-1111530594Business Law 12th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller ,Frank Cross
Edition 12ISBN: 978-1111530594 Exercise 13
A QUESTION OF ETHICS: Assignment.
In 1984, James Crigg's mother was killed in a car accident. Royal Insurance Co. of America agreed to pay Grigga number of monthly payments, as well as two lump-sum payments of $50,000 due May 1, 1995, and May 1, 2005. Royal contracted with Safeco Life Insurance Co. to make the payments. In 1997, Grigg assigned the 2005 payment of $50,000 to Howard Foley for $10,000. Neither Grigg nor Foley notified Safeco or Royal. Four years later, Grigg offered to sell Settlement Capital Corp. (SCC) his interest in the 2005 payment. On SCC's request, an Idaho state court approved the transfer. Foley later notified Safeco of his interest in the payment, and in 2005, the court approved an arrangement by which Foley and SCC would share the $50,000. Shortly before the 2005 payment was made, however, it was revealed that Grigg had also tried to sell his interest to Canco Credit Union, whose manager, Timothy Johnson, had paid Grigg for it. Later, Johnson assigned the interest to Robert Chris, who used it as collateral for a loan from Canco. Foley filed a suit in an Idaho state court against Grigg, asking the court to determine who, among these parties, was entitled to the 2005 payment. [ Foley v. Grigg, 144 Idaho 530, 164P.3d 180 (2007)]
(a) If the court applies the rule most often observed in the United States, who is likely to be awarded the $50,000? If the court applies the English rule, who will have priority to the payment?
(b) Regardless of the legal principles to be applied, was there a violation of ethics in these circumstances? Explain.
In 1984, James Crigg's mother was killed in a car accident. Royal Insurance Co. of America agreed to pay Grigga number of monthly payments, as well as two lump-sum payments of $50,000 due May 1, 1995, and May 1, 2005. Royal contracted with Safeco Life Insurance Co. to make the payments. In 1997, Grigg assigned the 2005 payment of $50,000 to Howard Foley for $10,000. Neither Grigg nor Foley notified Safeco or Royal. Four years later, Grigg offered to sell Settlement Capital Corp. (SCC) his interest in the 2005 payment. On SCC's request, an Idaho state court approved the transfer. Foley later notified Safeco of his interest in the payment, and in 2005, the court approved an arrangement by which Foley and SCC would share the $50,000. Shortly before the 2005 payment was made, however, it was revealed that Grigg had also tried to sell his interest to Canco Credit Union, whose manager, Timothy Johnson, had paid Grigg for it. Later, Johnson assigned the interest to Robert Chris, who used it as collateral for a loan from Canco. Foley filed a suit in an Idaho state court against Grigg, asking the court to determine who, among these parties, was entitled to the 2005 payment. [ Foley v. Grigg, 144 Idaho 530, 164P.3d 180 (2007)]
(a) If the court applies the rule most often observed in the United States, who is likely to be awarded the $50,000? If the court applies the English rule, who will have priority to the payment?
(b) Regardless of the legal principles to be applied, was there a violation of ethics in these circumstances? Explain.
Explanation
Verified
Verified
(a). Assignment:
In the case of Foley v...
Business Law 12th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller ,Frank Cross
Why don’t you like this exercise?
Other Minimum 8 character and maximum 255 character
Character 255
