What was the result in theRakestraw v. Rodriguezcase referenced in the textbook, a case in which a husband had forged his wife's signature to obtain a loan to start a grocery store?

Multiple Choice

• The court ruled that the wife's actions in sharing in profits and in helping run the business effectively voided her signature.
• The court ruled that the wife's actions in sharing in profits and in helping run the business effectively rescinded her signature.
• The court remanded the case for further findings regarding whether the wife gave her husband express authority to sign her name.
• The court ruled that the wife's actions in sharing in profits and in helping run the business effectively ratified her signature.
• The court affirmed the criminal liability of the husband, but remanded the case for further findings regarding the propriety of the husband's prison sentence for forgery.

High Maintenance. Paul, who runs a retail jewelry store, went with Jane, to whom he was engaged to be married, to a wholesale jewelry store. Paul had no express, written agreement with Jane by which she was his agent. In fact, Paul had told Jane not to buy anything at the store. The wholesale jeweler, Pam, asked Paul if Jane was buying for him. Paul did not want to embarrass Jane so he nodded in agreement. A few minutes later Paul reminded Jane, outside the hearing of the wholesaler, that she should not make any purchases. Paul and Jane had a big disagreement over money that evening, and Jane broke off their engagement. The next day Jane went back to the wholesale jeweler and purchased a string of pearls for $2,000. Jane also purchased a fur jacket for $3,000 from a store owned by Harry that was next door to the jewelry store. She told Harry that Paul wanted a fur jacket for a model in his store and that Paul would be glad to pay Harry for the jacket. Which of the following is the most likely result if Pam, the wholesale jeweler, sues Paul for the price of the pearls?

Multiple Choice

• Pam will win, but only if she can show that Jane has no assets with which to pay for the necklace.
• Pam will win, but only if she can show through reasonable investigative efforts on her part that Jane cannot be located.
• Pam will lose, because it was her responsibility to ask Paul for written documentation that Jane was his agent.
• Pam will win, assuming she can prove that she reasonably believed, based on Paul's conduct, that Jane was acting as his agent.
• Pam will lose, unless it can be established that Jane at some time in the past had actual authority to act as Paul's agent.