What was the court's CONCLUSION (decision, holding) in the Grande v Jennings case?Multiple choice question.For Jennings. The money was treasure trove and belonged to the finders (remodelers)For Grande. The money was lost, but the estate never intended to relinquish any valuable items that may have been secreted within the home.For Grande. The money was mislaid, the estate never intended to relinquish any valuable items that may have been secreted within the home.For Jennnings. The money was lost, and when the estate sold the home to Jennings she acquired ownership of the found property

What was the court's CONCLUSION (holding, decision) in the Townsend Ford v Hinds Ford case?Multiple choice question.For Townsend Ford. Summary judgment denied, as a matter of law, based on for fraud and equitable estoppel.For Townsend Ford. Summary judgment as a matter of law for $736,225.40.For Hinds Ford. Summary judgment as a matter of law for $736,225.40.For Hinds Ford. Summary judgment denied, as a matter of law, based on for fraud and equitable estoppel.

What was the court's CONCLUSION (holding, decision) in the Beer v Bennett case?Multiple choice question.Affirmed for Beer. Return of the purchase price to Beer, return of the Fiat to Bennett upon his payment of the judgmentAffirmed for Bennett. Return of the purchase price to Bennett and return of the Fiat to Beer upon his payment of the judgmentReversed for Beer. Return of the purchase price to Bennett and return of the Fiat to Beer upon his payment of the judgmentAffirmed for Bennett. Return of the purchase price to Beer and return of the Fiat to Bennett upon his payment of the judgment

What was the court's CONCLUSION (decision, holding) in the Cahaba Disaster Recovery v. Rogers case?Multiple choice question.Reversed for International Lining. Rogers is liable for the $208,100 purchase price, less the value of the FOC boom as accepted.For Cahaba. International Lining is liable for the $208,100 purchase price, less the value of the FOC boom as accepted by Cahaba.For International Living. Cahaba is liable for the $208,100 purchase price, less the value of the FOC boom as accepted by InternationalFor Rogers. International Lining is liable for the $208,100 purchase price, less the value of the FOC boom as accepted by Rogers

What was the court's CONCLUSION (holding,decision) in the Helena Chemical Co v Williamson case?Multiple choice question.For Helena Chemical. The limitation of remedies provision was in good faith and fair between the parties.For WIlliamson. Limitations of remedies provision fails of its essential purpose and he is not prevented from receiving consequential damages.For Helena Chemical. Williamson breached the contract based on the unambiguous language in the remedies and default sectionFor Helena Chemical. Limitation of remedies provision fails of its essential purpose so it is not prevented from receiving foreseeable damages.

Jennings bought an asset before 1 October 2001. During current year of assessment, she sold the asset for R500 000. She did not keep an accurate record of the expenditure or the cost of the asset. The Market Value of the asset on 1 October 2001 was R600 000. YOU ARE REQUIRED to determine the base cost of the asset.a.The base cost is limited to the Proceeds of R500 000 because the Proceeds are less than the Market Value.b.R200 000, the base cost is 20% of the (Proceeds less cost incurred after 1 October 2001) plus expenditure incurred after 1 October 2001. This is also known as an anti-avoidance measure.c.The base cost is R600 000, the Market Value of the asset on 1 October 2001. Jennings can use the Market Value even if it creates a loss.d.The base cost is R100 000 which is the Market Value of the asset on 1 October 2001 less Proceeds of R500 000 as the sale of this asset cannot create a loss.