Based on case study Maggie Grimes below and using the research for assignment for Life Skills #3 attached,write a one to two page memorandum predicting the outcome of the case of Maggie Grimes. Feel free to conduct additional research if necessary. Make sure that your memos include not only your conclusions but your reasons for who you predict will win this case.

Maggie Grimes Case Study

In the morning of November 1st, Maggie Grimes wrote a check for $1,000.00 payable to ?cash.? She put it in her purse, and drove over to the supermarket to do some groceries, after the supermarket she planned on going to the bank to cash the check. While at the supermarket Maggie?s cellphone rings, she looks inside her purse, takes out her cellphone, while she is taking it out, andunbeknownstto her, the check she wrote earlier fell out of her purse. Maggie continues doing groceries without realizing anything about the check. Glenn, who was also doing groceries, walks through the aisle that Maggie was just in, sees the check on the floor, and puts it in his pocket. Glenn owes Carol $1,000.00, so he decides he is going to use the check he has to pay off his debt to Carol. Glenn gives the check to Carol, Carol endorses the check on the back as follows: For deposit only, [Signed] Carol Judith, and deposits it into her bank account.

Running head: CASE STUDY 1 Case Study Student Name Course Title Oct 7, 2016 CASE STUDY 2 Pratt v. Hopper Introduction This is a request by the plaintiff from a judgment entered against her in an activity brought to recover an inadequacy on a note secured by trust deed after the security was sold. This bid includes just the respondents "H. C. Container" and "Raleigh R. Trimble". To the extent the litigants "F. W. Payne" and Mitchell Mayer are concerned, they are not included in this advance, the record demonstrating that litigant Payne has not been presented with a summons. And that respondent Mitchell Mayer, was served, neglected to show up or argue in the activity, and a default judgment was entered against him. Issue Plaintiff's altered complaint contained three reasons for movement; the first continues upon the hypothesis that the respondents utilized the name of Mitchell Mayer as an exchange or invented a name to cover the trade which they had with the offended party. They called and approved Mitchell Mayer to represent them and each of them as operator, and that whatever exchange he culminated he fulfilled for every one of them, together and severally; that the transactions were carried on for \"Mitchell Mayer\" and alternate defendants by \"Raleigh P. Trimble\"[sco09]. Rule The government alive in this area of the Civil Code is expressive of the law trader. An undisclosed vital has been held obligated except in instances of debatable instruments and claims to fame, yet the law appears to be all around settled that on account of doubtful instruments an CASE STUDY 3 undisclosed important couldn't be charged whenever. On account of questionable instruments, this limitation emerges, not because of the status of the gatherings, yet by a result of the character of the instrument. Application This particular case to the principle is based upon the reason that every meeting which takes a debatable instrument makes his agreement with the groups who show up all over to be destined for its installment. And in suits upon questionable devices, no confirmation is acceptable to charge any individual as primary to it unless his name somehow is unveiled on the instrument itself[rep82]. Conclusion The record for this case shows that plaintiff has already got a judgment against the operator of the claimed undisclosed principals. While the standard in this state is that activity might be brought against both a specialist and his undisclosed chief, the offended party might not have judgment against both, but rather before the end of the case on trial must choose whether he will take judgment against either. CASE STUDY 4 Lopez v. Puzina The topic communication dated "July 15, 1958" in the primary entirety of "$4,298.26", payable to the request of "Anthony Joseph Caruso" and "Marie Doris Caruso." His significant other was executed by Robert W. Lesco and Willa Mae Lesco, his better half, and conveyed to say, payees. The note discussed that it was secured by a deed of trust. The Carusos along these lines doled out the note to the Puzinas without a plan of action by a task joined to the record. Issue When the note got to be expected and payable on July 15, 1963, it was exhibited by offended parties to the Lescos for an installment of the face sum, in addition to intrigue then due in the aggregate of "$1,719.30". Installment having been won't, offended parties brought the moment activity on the subject note against the Lescos, as creators, and the Puzinas upon a protest claiming that the Puzinas were endorsers of the note. An objection to the dissension, intervened by the Puzinas, was overruled and the cause continued to trial against them. At the finish of offended parties' case, the Puzinas made a movement for nonsuit which was allowed and judgment was entered subsequently. Rule The property in "Mosely" and "First Nat. Bank" speak to the minority administer, the general tenet took after by most locales, including California, being that support must be composed on the instrument itself or on a paper appended. Or attached to it keeping in mind the CASE STUDY 5 end goal to adequately accuse one of the obligations of an endorser, or to give privileges of an endorsee. Application Plaintiffs likewise fight that when one archive alludes to another, the law regards them as a single instrument. The cases which they refer to in backing of this recommendation are explanatory of the general tenet pertinent to the elucidation of agreements that two or more composed instruments identifying with the same topic and executed as parts of significantly one exchange are to be understood together as one contract. Conclusion Another disagreement which plaintiffs make is that the dialect contained in the Task of Deed of Trust that offended parties have embraced" the note ought to be interpreted in its debatable instrument meaning and ought to have the right impact of support. This dialect seems to allude to the way that the note was embraced. In any case, expecting that this dialect indicates by its wording to be the underwriting itself, it can't be powerful accordingly because, as we have brought up above, it is contained in a different instrument[nil16]. CASE STUDY 6 References nilc. (2016). Appeal from the United States District Court for the district of Arizona. Retrieved from nilc: https://www.nilc.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ADAC-v-Brewer-petition-forreahearing-en-banc-2016-05-19.pdf repository. (1982). A Reexamination of the Agency Doctrine of election. Retrieved from repository: http://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2311&context=umlr scocal. (2009). Cobb v. California Bank, 6 Cal.2d 389. Retrieved from scocal: http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/cobb-v-california-bank-24990