Rachel entered into a contract to purchase a 2004 Dodge from Hanna, who lived in the neighboring apartment. When a dispute arose over the terms of the contract, Hanna argued that, because neither she nor Rachel was a merchant, the dispute should be decided under general principles of common law. Rachel, on the other hand, argued that Hanna was legally considered to be a merchant because she sold the car for profit and that, consequently, the sale was governed by the Uniform Commercial Code. Who is correct? Explain.

Hanna is correct.

Explanation:

The sale of the 2004 Dodge cannot be construed to be a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code since this law covers sales of goods by merchants.  Hanna cannot be said to be a merchant of 2004 Dodge as she is not known to be in the business for the purchase and sale of cars.  Therefore, the case should be adjudicated under the common law.  What has taken place in this instance is the exchange of a personal asset.  Hanna cannot make a trading profit from the sale, but a capital gain.  Rachel is not correct.

answerinsider trading

answer90,000;