Wyclef Jean Fast Car

A Tribute To Wyclef’s “Fast Car” From The Album

Simon: Cars Are Cars sheet music is available for immediate download.

Wyclef Jean featuring Paul Simon – Fast Car ft. Paul Simon

Music video by Wyclef Jean featuring Paul Simon performing Fast Car. (c) 2008 SONY BMG MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT

Who can claim the status as Holder in Due Course and status of parties?Does Simon have to pay off the note? Simon issues a ninety-day negotiable note payable to the order of Borges for him to purchase a car. Borges has already forged a relationship with a car dealer, and begins negotiating. Simon holds the amount of note blank, pending a determination of the amount of money he will need to purchase the car. Simon authorizes any amount that doesnt exceed $3,000. Without authority Borges fills in the note in the amount of $5,000, later sells the note toAbbott for $4,850. Borges doesnt buy the car andleaves the state, $5,000 richer. Abbott has no knowledge that the note was incomplete when issued or that he had no authority to complete the note in the amount of $5,000. Nevertheless,Abbott now holds the note and sells it to Sturrock for $4,700. Abbott and Sturrock negotiated a price at the Wooden Nickel, where they had a couple of beers. Sturrock, now the holder of the note, sells it to First National Bank at a discount of $4,500. First National Bank presents the note to Simon for payment.

Simon: Cars Are Cars sheet music is available for immediate download.

I never took Negotiable Instruments as a class in law school.But from the limited studying I did for the bar, it seems like a Holder in Due Course follows all the same rules as a Bona Fide Purchaser did under property law.Try doing the analysis that way, and see if it makes sense.

I am not a Lawyer but my OPINION would be that Simon has to pay up for the full $5000. Giving a blank note is along the lines of giving someone a blank check.yes the verbal amount authorized is Greater but the origional person that the note was presented to did not know that and honored the note. Simon will have recourse against Borges. His error in not qualifying the note leaves him defensless from collection by First National Bank.

simon is the originator of the transaction so he is totally responsible ti issue payment of the $5000. to the First National Bank. bettyk

whats is the name of the Sony camera and the three small cars used ay Knight and Day? I really liked the camera that Tom Cruise used to take a picture of the container walls to find simon and Id like to know what is the name of the camera thats he used.Now about the three small cars that they used in Seville,Spain at the chasing scene.Can anybody out there help me I´ll give you all the stars if you give me both answers.
Whatever your purposes in converting an Sony AVCHD camcorder video, you can get the method here, so just know how to do it.you can google Aunsoft Sony Camcorder Column to get it.aunsoft.com/camera/sony.html

Can anyone answer these simple grade eight math problems? 1. Two cars are stopped facing each other on opposite ends of the road. Each car then drives for 8 km forward, stops,turns right, and then continues driving for 6 km. Determine the distance between the 2 cars.2. Simon plans to install a new ceiling in his basement. The square ceiling tiles he plans to use are 1.5 long and 1m wide. If the area of the square basement ceiling is 39m square, how many ceiling tiles are needed.BY the way i am doing my homework i just don’t understand it!
1) We need to know how far apart the cars were initially to solve this.2) Each tile has an area of (1)(1.5) = 1.5 m^2. If the basement is 39 m^2 then 39/1.5 = 26 tiles will be needed. (note: a tile 1m x 1.5m is not square)
6^2 + 8^2 = 12^2 12* 2 = 24 miles in between the cars39/1.5 = 26 tiles.
Advise Jack and Simon whether they can sue Lemon & Co and/or Orange & Co on the basis of vicarious liability.? Please help me with the following scenario for my Law essay:Frank works for Lemon & Co, as a driver, delivering soft drinks to customers. Lemon & Co have expressly forbidden their drivers to allow anyone to ride in the delivery vans. Despite this, Frank often allows Jack, aged 13, to ride with him and assist on the delivery round. Jack rides in the back of the van to help with loading and unloading. For the last week, Lemon & Co have hired out a van and Frank’s services to Orange & Co. On the first day, Orange & Co. reminded Frank that he should not carry passengers in the van. Frank disregarded this and continued to allow Jack to ride with him. Whilst delivering Orange & Co.’s goods, the van was involved in a collision with a car due to negligence on Frank’s part. Jack, who was riding in the back of the van at the time, was badly injured when the drink crates fell on him. Frank got out of the van and spoke to the driver of the car, Simon. Simon accused Frank of causing the accident by driving too fast, whereupon Frank lost his temper and struck him, giving him a black eye.Note: you may presume that Frank committed the tort of battery by hitting Simon and you do not need to write about this tort in answering the following question:1) Advise Jack and Simon whether they can sue Lemon & Co and/or Orange & Co on the basis of vicarious liability.I would really appreciate if i could recieve a really good detailed answer to this. Thank you 🙂 sorry for the late reply.this question is for 2nd year LLB law and the jurisdiction is for England.you’re so helpful, thank u so much !
What jurisdiction is this for? eg, are you in America? Australia? England? Even though you are from a common law country, the precedents will change country to country. I will make a few suggestions, but without any precedents for the time being.Firstly you need to look at the relationship between Frank and Lemon & Co, and ask yourself is there an Employer and Employee relationship? I think the answer is obvious from the facts so you won’t need to apply a test to determine this.Now ask yourself, was the tort committed in the course of Frank’s employment with Lemon & Co?From that facts we can agree that it was committed in the course of his employment. Frank is a delivery driver and the accident occurred whilst making deliveries for Orange & Co.Now we turn to the tortious events – Firstly we know that under the common law a wrongful mode (a wrongful way) of doing an authorised act is still regarded as in the course of employment.Now look at any prohibition made by the employer – From the facts we can see that Lemon & Co, and Orange & Co, expressly prohibited anyone to ride in the delivery vans though Frank ignored this prohibition though this does not necessarily relived them from liability.Though there is a prohibition, Jack was assisting Frank in furthering the employer’s interests, therefore it would still be regarded as in the course of employment. The important distinction to remember here is if Frank is furthering his own personal interests or furthering the interests of his employer. I would conclude that Lemon & Co is Vicariously Liable for the injuries of Jack.Turning to the liability of the employer toward Simon.This is more straightforward. As we have already established, at the time the accident took place, Frank was carrying it his functions as an employee, he was not on a frolic of his own. The fact that Frank committed a negligent act whilst driving will not prevent Lemon & Co from being vicariously liable. We can conclude that Lemon & Co will be vicariously liable for the damage incurred to Simon’s vehicle and any personal damage, whether physical or psychological, that flows from the accident. Vicarious Liability will occur here but will not flow to any liability that comes from Frank committing the tort of battery against Simon, here we can clearly see that Frank was on his own frolic here, so there is no need to consider the issue any further.Now we turn to Orange & Co. Is Orange & Co Vicariously Liable for the actions of Frank?Once again you need to establish if there is an employee/employer relationship? From the facts we can see that there is not an employee/employer relationship and in fact Frank was essentially an Independent Contractor for Orange & Co. This is not a detailed approach in determining if Frank is an Independent Contractor (there is a special test for it) but from reading the question, I don’t think you are required to go into such detail.We can conclude that in light of Frank being an Independent Contractor for Orange & Co, that they are not Vicariously Liable for the actions committed by Frank.In Conclusion I would suggest that you apply all the relevant tests that you have learn from cases, and at the very least, quote the judgment, for example, when I say an employer is not liable for acts of an Independent Contractor this comes from Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd.I would be interested to know what University level this question is for?