Misleading Debtor’s Name, Filing bankruptcy, Security Interest, and Guaranty Contract

Business law
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Critical legal thinking
Pankratz should have been accused since the misspelling of the name was only minor and this would not a cause material misstatement in the financial records of the company. Pankratz provided the name of the debtor in their financial statements and there was no likelihood that there would be a mix-up from misspelling of the name. Both parties in the case Pankratz Implement Company v. Citizens National Bank, acted ethically as there was a need to understand whether a misspelling of a debtor’s name misled the financial statements. The sufficiency of the debtor’s name while issuing credit should not be in doubt, even when there are minor omissions.
The secured creditor’s claim may conduct a search under the debtor’s name, but there was clarity that misleading debtor’s name is potentially misleading.
Law case with answers
Filing bankruptcy allows individual to request for protection against the seizure of certain assets when the creditors come calling. Even though the federal bankruptcy exemptions are codified, states may allow one to choose the state laws, and federal or state laws alone in the case of Leibovitz, Tennessee offers exemptions for bankruptcy protection under state law, and Leibovitz would then have to prove that the jewelry constituted necessary and proper wearing apparel. The bankruptcy code specific to Tennessee informs the debtors and creditors on what would have to be paid when the debtor files for bankruptcy protection. The Federal Magistrates have little in bankruptcy issues in the Tennessee, with appeals also focusing on the state’s exemptions rather than the Federal’s exemption.
Critical legal thinking case
Paul High granted a security interest of his property and livestock to McGowan and ten to Nebraska Sate Bank (Cheeseman, 2013). However, the bank perfected the security interest first, and hence had priority over McGowan. The priority of secured interests prioritizes the rights of secured creditors over the unsecured. The McGowans’ ought to have perfected the security interest, but they can still argue that they should be prioritized if they are both secured creditors.
Brenda Brandt suffered complications having been implanted with sling that was later recalled after being defective and was manufactured by Boston Scientific Corporation, and she sued both the company and the hospital (Cheeseman, 2013). Brandt ar...