Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
47. Should the trial court grant the buyer's motion?
The employee has sued the buyer for battery. The buyer has moved for summary judgment, arguing that she was privileged to act as she did.
An employee of the agency went to the buyer's home and knocked on the front door. When the buyer answered, the employee explained that he was there to repossess the car and asked for the car keys. The buyer handed the employee the keys but then asked the employee to allow her to retrieve her laptop computer from the car. The employee declined the request, explaining to the buyer that any possessions in the car could be reclaimed from the company after the car was repossessed. After pleading unsuccessfully with the employee, the buyer shoved the employee away from the door with such force that the employee fell and suffered a broken wrist. The buyer then ran to the car, which was unlocked, and retrieved the laptop.
After a car buyer failed to make timely payments on her auto loan and failed to respond to notices of default properly sent to her home address, the loan company hired a collection agency to repossess the car.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
B is incorrect. The buyer's claim of a privilege for the use of force would be based on her possessory right in the laptop, not the car.
C is incorrect. There is no general rule permitting possessors of property to use nonlethal force to protect their possessory rights in all situations. Possessors can sometimes use nonlethal force to protect their possessions, but only if the force used is reasonable under the circumstances.
D is incorrect. The buyer's compliance with the employee's request for the keys, and the reasonableness of the buyer's request to retrieve the laptop, do not establish as a matter of law that the buyer's use of force was reasonable under the circumstances.