Mod 4 Dis BUS230

Mack, a dealer, sold Hudgens, a used car on credit. At the time of the sale, Mach fraudulently informed Hudgens that the car was in good condition: in fact, the car needed extensive repairs. When Hudgens attempted to return the car to Mack within the thirty-day guarantee period, Mach refused to take the car back. In the meantime, Mack had assigned Hudgen’s contract to Universal CIT Credit Corp. When Hudgens refused to pay on the contract, Universal CIT sued him. Hudgens defense was that he had the right to set aside the contract based on fraud. Was Hudgens correct? (Universal CIT Credit Corporation vs Hudgens, 356 S.W.2d 658)

One or two sentence original posts will not receive full credit. You should be trying for 300-500 words. Please remember that you are required to respond to at least two of your peers each week to receive full credit. A response must be more than one sentence and more than an “I agree” statement.  Also, responding to your instructor does not count as a peer response.