Carr PT Question

July 2015
MPT-1 File:
In re Bryan Carr
MPT-1 File
Anders, Davis & Waters
Attorneys at Law
6241 Lowell Street

Franklin City, Franklin 33205
To: Examinee
From: Miles Anders
Re: Bryan Carr
Date: July 28, 2015
My friend and former college roommate Bryan Carr has consulted me about a credit card
problem he is facing. I offered to help him figure out a strategy for responding.

Bryan’s mother died last year. Since then his father, Henry Carr, has become more and more
dependent upon Bryan. Several months ago, Henry asked Bryan if Bryan could pay the estimated

$1,500 it would take to repair Henry’s van. Bryan gave his credit card to Henry and told him that

he could charge all the repairs but could not use the card for anything else. Bryan also gave
Henry a letter that said Bryan was giving Henry permission to use the card. In the end, the total

repair cost was $1,850, which was charged to Bryan’s card.

Bryan forgot to get the credit card and letter back from his father, and Henry used the card to buy

several things in addition to the auto repairs. Over several months, Henry charged gasoline,
groceries, books, and, most recently, power tools to Bryan’s account. Bryan always pays the
entire balance on his credit cards each month, and he had already paid for the first three months

of purchases without noticing Henry’s charges. However, earlier this month, Bryan discovered
the unauthorized purchases. He promptly contacted the bank that issued the card to dispute the

charges. The bank has notified him that he is responsible for all charges.
Bryan would like our advice about his legal obligation to pay the bank for the charges Henry
made in March, April, May, and June, as detailed in the statements for these months. Please draft

an opinion letter for my signature to Bryan. This letter should advise Bryan of the extent of his

liability for each of Henry’s purchases. The letter should follow the attached firm guidelines for

opinion letters.
3
MPT-1 File
Anders, Davis & Waters
Attorneys at Law
6241 Lowell Street
Franklin City, Franklin 33205
OFFICE MEMORANDUM

To: Associates
From: Managing partner
Re: Opinion letters
Date: September 5, 2013
The firm follows these guidelines in preparing opinion letters to clients:

Identify each issue separately and present each issue in the form of a “yes or no”
question. (E.g., Is the client’s landlord entitled to apply the security deposit to the back

rent owed?)
Following each issue, provide a concise one or twosentence statement which gives a
“short answer” to the question.
Following the short answer, write a more detailed explanation and legal analysis of each

issue, incorporating all important facts and providing legal citations. Explain how the
relevant legal authorities combined with the facts lead to your conclusions.

Bear in mind that, in most cases, the client is not a lawyer; avoid using legal jargon.
Remember to write in a way that allows the client to follow your reasoning and the logic

of your conclusions.

4
MPT-1 File
Transcript of telephone conversation between Miles Anders and Bryan Carr
July 24, 2015
Anders: Bryan, I heard your voicemail message. I’m sorry you are having problems, and I’d

like to help. Can you tell me what happened?

Carr: Well, you know that my mom died late last year. My dad has been devastated. They

were married for 40 years. My mom had always organized and maintained their
household and paid all the bills. Now my dad is pretty much at a loss for how to cope.
Even though this is a busy season for my landscaping business, I’ve tried to step in to

support him as much as I can, including paying some of his bills. It’s been tough
keeping up with all that’s going on.
Anders: Can you tell me more about your dad’s situation? I’m asking because I understand
that this has contributed to your current problem.

Carr: About four months ago, my dad came to me after his van broke down. He had gotten

a repair estimate for $1,500, and he didn’t have the money on hand to pay for the
repairs. I decided to help him out and told him I would pay whatever it cost to have

his van repaired. I also told my dad it was a loan, but honestly, I was never going to

ask him to pay me back. I love my dad and wanted to help him in his time of need.
Anders: How did you give him the money?
Carr: I let him use one of my credit cards. It seemed the easiest thing to do at the time. I had

a card that had a zero balance on it. It’s with Acme State Bank. When I gave my dad

the credit card, I told him that he could charge the van repairs, but I also specifically

told him that that was the only purchase or charge he should make on the card.

Anders: Did you do anything else?
Carr: Yes, I wrote a letter that said that my dad was authorized to use my credit card and

gave it to him. I think I also wrote the credit card account number and expiration date

on the letter. I made a copy of the letter and have it in my desk. I will scan it and
email it to you as soon as we get off the phone.

Anders: Did the letter say anything about restricting the purchase specifically to the van
repairs?
Carr: No, it didn’t.
Anders: Did your dad charge the repairs?

5
MPT-1 File
Carr: Yes, my dad used my Acme State Bank card to pay for the van repairs. The final bill

was somewhat more than the original estimate. Apparently an additional part was
needed, making the total repair cost $1,850. That was $350 more than the original
estimate. My dad charged the total amount to my credit card.

Anders: Then what happened?
Carr: With all that was going on in my life, I forgot to get my credit card back from my dad
until about six weeks ago. When I finally did, I also got back the letter I’d given him.

Unfortunately, I subsequently learned that my dad had already used the card to make

additional purchases without ever asking my permission or even telling me. In fact,
he even used my account information after returning the card and letter.

Anders: How did you find out about the additional purchases?
Carr: When I was reviewing and preparing to pay my current credit card statement, I
noticed a $1,200 charge to Franklin Hardware Store for power tools. I knew I had not

made this purchase. I called my dad to see if he knew anything about the power tools

purchase.
Anders: What did your dad say?
Carr: He admitted he had used my account number to buy the power tools. He told me he

wanted to prove to himself and the rest of the
family that he could take care of the
house, and he impulsively went to buy some tools to make some household repairs.

He said he had written the account information on a piece of paper before returning
the credit card and my letter to me.
Because my dad had already returned the credit card and my letter to me before he
purchased the tools, he said he merely presented the credit card account name,
number, and expiration date to the hardware store clerk. The clerk must have been out

of his mind, but he accepted the information my dad presented and charged the tools

to my account. My dad feels terrible and has apologized profusely. He is so ashamed

of himself.
Anders: Are these the only other charges your dad made?

Carr: I wish. He also admitted that before he returned my card, he had used it to buy gas,

groceries, and books over the past few months.

Anders: What did you do after you learned of all these transactions?

6
MPT-1 File
Carr: I pulled out my file with my Acme State Bank credit card statements and reviewed
my statements for the past several months. Sure enough, upon review, I noticed that

during the past four months, in addition to the van repairs, my dad had charged
gasoline on two occasions at Friendly Gas, groceries on one occasion at the Corner
Market, books at Rendell’s Book Store, and most recently, the power tools at the
Franklin Hardware Store. I always pay the entire balance on my credit cards on the

due date each month. All the gas, grocery, and book charges made by my dad have

already been paid in full. I noted this fact by writing “Paid—BC” on each of the past

statements. I never noticed these charges before I paid my statements. The truth is, I

usually don’t review the bills very carefully, and I didn’t notice the gas, grocery, and

book charges because he and I both shop at the same places. I probably gave each
statement a quick glance, if that. However, I have not yet paid the current credit card

statement for June with the $1,200 power tools charge.

Anders: Have you contacted the bank or done anything else?

Carr: I called the bank to discuss the problem. They directed me to fill out and send in their
form disputing the charges. I did this right away.
Anders: What happened?
Carr: This morning I received
a letter from the bank informing me that I was responsible
for all the charges. That’s when I called your office.

Anders: What would you like to see happen?
Carr: I know my dad did something he shouldn’t have done; I told him to return the tools if

he still could. But he’s a senior citizen and in considerable distress. The various
vendors should not have allowed him to use my credit card. I know he had the card in

his possession for all but the power tools purchase, but it’s still not right for the bank
to say I’m responsible. I’d like to know whether the bank can hold me responsible for

each of the charges my dad made.
Anders: Bryan, we’ll look into this quickly. Meanwhile, please don’t pay your credit card
statement until you get further advice from us. I’ll be back in touch before the current

payment due date.
7
MPT-1 File
March 12, 2015
To Whom It May Concern:

I, Bryan Carr, give my father, Henry Carr, permission to use my Acme
State Bank credit card:
account number 474485AC66873641, expiration date 09/2017. If you have any questions, please

feel free to call me at 5556548965.

Thank you,
_________________________
Bryan Carr
8
MPT-1 File
ACME STATE BANK

P.O. Box 309
Evergreen, Franklin 33800
Billing Statement: March 2015
Bryan Carr Account Number 474485AC66873641

6226 Lake Drive
Franklin City, FR 33244
New Charges
DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
March 16, 2015 Schmidt Auto Repair $1,850.00
Total $1,850.00
Payment Due Date Minimum Due

April 30, 2015 $55.50
DIRECT ALL INQUIRIES TO MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO

(800) 555-5555 Acme State Bank
P.O. Box 309
Evergreen, FR 33800
THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!
7
9
MPT-1 File
ACME STATE BANK

P.O. Box 309
Billing Statement: April 2015

6226 Lake Drive
April 30, 2015 Payment Received $1,850.00
New Charges
April 10, 2015 Friendly Gas Station $75.00
April 16, 2015 Corner Store $55.00
April 21, 2015 Friendly Gas Station $76.50
Total $206.50

May 31, 2015 $15.00

P.O. Box 309
Evergreen, FR 33800
10
MPT-1 File
ACME STATE BANK

P.O. Box 309
Billing Statement: May 2015

6226 Lake Drive
May 31, 2015 Payment Received $206.50
New Charges
May 16, 2015 Rendell’s Book Store $45.70
Total $45.70

June 30, 2015 $15.00

P.O. Box 309
Evergreen, FR 33800
9
11
MPT-1 File
ACME STATE BANK

P.O. Box 309
Billing Statement: June 2015

6226 Lake Drive
June 30, 2015 Payment Received $45.70
New Charges
June 21, 2015 Franklin Hardware Store—power tools $1,200.00
Total $1,200.00

July 31, 2015 $36.00

P.O. Box 309
Evergreen, FR 33800
10
12
July 2015
MPT-1 Library:
In re Bryan Carr
MPT-1 Library
Excerpts from Federal Truth in Lending Act
15 U.S.C. §§ 1602 and 1643
§ 1602 Definitions and rules of construction
(a) The definitions and rules of construction set forth in this section are applicable for the
purposes of this subchapter.
. . .
(k) The term “credit card” means any card, plate, coupon book, or other credit device existing for

the purpose of obtaining money, property, labor, or services on credit.

. . .
(o) The term “unauthorized use,” as used in section 1643 of this title, means a use of a credit card

by a person other than the cardholder who does not have actual, implied, or apparent authority
for such use and from which the cardholder receives no benefit.

* * *
§ 1643 Liability of holder of credit card
(a) Limits on liability
(1) A cardholder shall be liable for the unauthorized use of a credit card only if—

(A) the card is an accepted credit card;

(B) the liability is not in excess of $50;
. . .
(E) the unauthorized use occurs before the card issuer has been notified that an
unauthorized use of the credit card has occurred or may occur as a result of loss, theft, or

otherwise; and
(F) the card issuer has provided a method whereby the user of such card can be identified

as the person authorized to use it.
. . .
(d) Exclusiveness of liability. Except as provided in this section, a cardholder incurs no liability
from the unauthorized use of a credit card.
11
15
MPT-1 Library
Excerpts from Restatement (Third) of Agency (2006)

§ 1.01 Agency Defined
Agency is the fiduciary relationship that arises when one person (a “principal”) manifests assent

to another person (an “agent”) that the agent shall act on the principal’s behalf and subject to the
principal’s control, and the agent manifests assent or otherwise consents so to act.

§ 2.01 Actual Authority
An agent acts with actual authority when, at the time of taking action that has legal consequences
for the principal, the agent reasonably believes, in accordance with the principal’s manifestations
to the agent, that the principal wishes the agent so to act.
§ 2.03 Apparent Authority
Apparent authority is the power held by an agent or other actor to affect a principal’s legal
relations with third parties when a third party reasonably believes the actor has authority to act

on behalf of the principal and that belief is traceable to the principal’s manifestations.
§ 3.01 Creation of Actual Authority

Actual authority, as defined in § 2.01, is created by a principal’s manifestation to an agent that,

as reasonably understood by the agent, expresses the principal’s assent that the agent take action

on the principal’s behalf.
§ 3.03 Creation of Apparent Authority
Apparent authority, as defined in § 2.03, is created by a person’s manifestation that another has

authority to act with legal consequences for the person who makes the manifestation, when a
third party reasonably believes the actor to be authorized and the belief is traceable to the
manifestation.
§ 3.11 Termination of Apparent Authority
(1) The termination of actual authority does not by itself end any apparent authority held by an

agent.
(2) Apparent authority ends
when it is no longer reasonable for the third party with whom an
agent deals to believe that the agent continues to act with actual authority.
12
16
MPT-1 Library
BAK Aviation Systems, Inc. v. World Airways, Inc.

Franklin Court of Appeal (2007)
In 2005, BAK Aviation Systems, Inc. § 1643(a), places a limit of $50 on the
(BAK), issued a credit card to World liability of a credit cardholder for charges
Airlines, Inc. (World), to purchase fuel for a incurred by an “unauthorized” user. This
corporate jet leased by World from BAK. appeal concerns the applicability of this
World designated Ken Swenson, an provision to a card bearer who was given
independent contractor hired by World, as permission by the cardholder to make a
chief pilot of the leased jet and gave him limited range of purchases but who
permission to make fuel purchases with the subsequently made additional charges on the
BAK credit card but only in connection with
card. We conclude that Swenson, who
non-charter flights involving World incurred the charges, was not an
executives. However, Swenson used the “unauthorized” user within the meaning of
credit card to charge $89,025 to World in § 1643(a) and therefore affirm.

connection with charter flights involving
nonWorld customers prior to the Congress enacted the 1970 Amendments to
cancellation of the credit card in 2006. the Truth in Lending Act in large measure to
When World refused to pay, BAK sought protect credit cardholders from unauthorized
recovery in court. use perpetrated by those able to obtain
possession of a card from its original owner.

The trial court entered judgment for BAK The amendments limit the liability of
for the full amount in dispute. The court cardholders for all charges by third parties
held that the federal Truth in Lending Act, made without “actual, implied, or apparent
which limits a cardholder’s liability for authority” and “from which the cardholder
“unauthorized” uses, did not apply to receives no benefit.” 15 U.S.C. §§ 1602(o),
charges incurred by one to whom the 1643. Where an unauthorized use has
cardholder had voluntarily allowed access occurred, the cardholder can be held liable
for another purpose. World appeals. only up to a limit of $50 for the amount
charged on the card, if certain conditions are

The Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. satisfied. 15 U.S.C. § 1643(a)(1)(B).
13
17
MPT-1 Library
By defining “unauthorized use” as that actual authority. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD)

lacking “actual, implied, or apparent OF AGENCY § 2.02, comment (b).
authority,” Congress intended, and courts

have accepted, primary reliance on With respect to the transactions Swenson
principles of agency law in determining the made in connection with the charter flights,
liability of cardholders for charges incurred we conclude that no actual or implied
by thirdparty card bearers. Under the authority existed.
parameters established by Congress, the
inquiry into “unauthorized use” properly Unlike actual or implied authority, however,

focuses on whether the user acted as the apparent authority exists entirely apart from

cardholder’s agent in incurring the debt in the principal’s manifestations of consent to
dispute. A cardholder, as principal, can the agent. Rather, the cardholder, as
create actual authority only through principal, creates apparent authority through
manifestations to the user of consent to the words or actions that, reasonably interpreted

particular transactions into which the user by a third party from whom the card bearer

has entered. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF makes purchases, indicate that the card
AGENCY § 3.01. bearer acts with the cardholder’s consent.
See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY
“Implied authority” has been held to mean § 3.03.
actual authority either (1) to do what is
necessary, usual, and proper to accomplish Though a cardholder’s relinquishment of
or perform an agent’s express possession of a credit card may create in
responsibilities or (2) to act in a manner in another the appearance of authority to use
which an agent believes the principal wishes the card, the statute clearly precludes a
the agent to act based on the agent’s finding of apparent authority where the
reasonable interpretation of the principal’s transfer of the card was without the
manifestations in light of the principal’s cardholder’s consent, as in cases involving
objectives and other facts known to the theft, loss, or fraud. However elastic the
agent. These meanings are not mutually principle of apparent authority may be in
exclusive. Both fall within the definition of theory, the language of the 1970
14
18
MPT-1 Library
Amendments demonstrates Congress’s Swenson made for the non-charter flights

intent that charges incurred as a result of from the disputed purchases for the charter
involuntary card transfers are to be regarded flights. It was industry custom to entrust
as unauthorized under §§ 1602(o) and 1643.
credit cards used to make airplanerelated
purchases to the pilot of the plane. By
Because the Truth in Lending Act provides designating Swenson as the pilot and
no guidance as to uses arising from the subsequently giving him the BAK card,
voluntary transfer of credit cards, the World thereby imbued him with more
general principles of agency law, apparent authority than might arise from
incorporated by reference in § 1602(o), voluntary relinquishment of a credit card
in
govern disputes over whether a resulting use other contexts. In addition, with World’s
was unauthorized. These disputes frequently blessing, Swenson had used the card, which
involve, as in this case, a cardholder’s claim
was inscribed with the registration number
that the card bearer was given permission to
of the Gulfstream jet, to purchase fuel on
use a card for only a limited purpose and noncharter flights for the same plane. The
that subsequent charges exceeded the only difference between those uses
consent originally given by the cardholder. expressly authorized and those now claimed
Acknowledging the absence of actual to be unauthorized—the identity of the
authority for the additional charges, a passengers—was insufficient to provide
majority of courts have declined to apply notice to those who sold the fuel that
the Truth in Lending Act to limit Swenson lacked authority for the charter
the cardholder’s liability, reasoning that
the flight purchases.
cardholder’s voluntary relinquishment of the
card for one purpose gives the bearer Here, the disputed charges were not
apparent authority to make additional “unauthorized” within the meaning of 15
charges. (Citations omitted.)
U.S.C. §§ 1602(o) and 1643(a)(1).
Accordingly, BAK was entitled to recover
Nothing about the BAK credit card itself, or
the full value of the charges from World
the circumstances surrounding the under their credit agreement. The judgment
purchases, gave fuel sellers reason to of the trial court is affirmed.
distinguish the authorized fuel purchases
15
19
MPT-1 Library
Transmutual Insurance Co. v. Green Oil Co.
Franklin Court of Appeal (2009)
This is an appeal from a holding of the trial used the GreenPlus card to obtain goods and
court finding against defendant Green Oil services in the amount of $26,376.53.
Co. and in favor of plaintiff Transmutual Transmutual paid for these purchases with
Insurance Co. In March 2000, Transmutual checks signed by Smith and an authorized
obtained a Green Oil credit card for use in officer. During this time, Transmutual
its business. Transmutual’s office manager, employed accounting firms to perform
Donna Smith, was responsible for requesting
audits, but they did not discover the fraud.
credit cards for Transmutual employees and

paying bills. Smith did not have the Under the federal Truth in Lending Act, 15
authority to open new credit accounts for U.S.C. § 1643(a), a cardholder is liable only
Transmutual; only its general manager had for a limited amount if certain conditions are
this authority. met and if the use of the credit card was
unauthorized. Accordingly, the initial
On May 16, 2005, Smith made a written determination is whether or not the use of
request to Green Oil for a GreenPlus credit the credit card in the case at hand was
card. A GreenPlus credit card may be used unauthorized. The federal definition of
for purchases of goods and services other “unauthorized use” is “a use of a credit card
than those furnished at gasoline service by a person other than the cardholder who
stations. The GreenPlus application was does not have actual, implied, or apparent
signed by Smith as office manager. It also authority for such use and from which the
contained a signature purporting to be that cardholder receives no benefit.” 15 U.S.C.
of Alexander Foster as general manager and
§ 1602(o). The test for determining
secretarytreasurer of Transmutual; unauthorized use is governed by agency law,
however, the trial court determined that and agency law must be used to resolve this
Foster’s signature was forged by Smith.
issue.
During the period from May 2005 until July Smith did not have actual or implied
2008, Smith wrongfully and fraudulently authority to request a GreenPlus credit card.
16
20
MPT-1 Library
The trial court correctly determined that the
person or entity may be held liable.
principle of apparent authority controls in
this case. The federal Truth in Lending Act does not
address whether cardholder negligence
Apparent authority is created when a third removes the statutory liability limit.
party reasonably believes the actor to be However, we believe that Transmutual’s
authorized and the belief is traceable to the negligence in not examining its monthly
manifestation of the principal. statements from Green Oil removes this case
RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF AGENCY § 3.03. from the statutory limit on cardholder
Transmutual is bound by Smith’s acts under
liability.
apparent authority only to third persons who
have incurred a liability in good faith and A cardholder has a duty to examine his
without ordinary negligence. The trial court credit card statement promptly, using
correctly determined that Green Oil acted reasonable care to discover unauthorized
negligently by issuing Smith a GreenPlus signatures or alterations. If the card issuer
credit card without independently verifying uses reasonable care in generating the
her authority. Because of Green Oil’s statement and if the cardholder fails to
negligence, the trial court determined that examine his statement, the cardholder is
Green Oil, as the card issuer, could not rely precluded from asserting his unauthorized
upon Smith’s ostensible authority to signature against the card issuer after a
establish the existence of agency between certain time.
Smith and Transmutual.
The facts at hand are similar. Green Oil was

However, the trial court erred in not looking not negligent in billing Transmutual. If
beyond Green Oil’s negligence in issuing someone at Transmutual other than Smith
Smith the card. After receiving the first had examined its statements from Green Oil,
statement from Green Oil containing the he or she would have discovered Smith’s
fraudulent charges, Transmutual was fraud. Transmutual had the responsibility to

negligent in not finding and reporting institute internal procedures for the
Smith’s fraud. If the person or entity to examination of the statements from Green
whom a credit card is issued is careless, that
Oil which would have disclosed Smith’s
17
21
MPT-1 Library
deception. Transmutual had sole power to Green Oil was negligent in issuing Smith the

do so. Transmutual’s failure to institute such GreenPlus card. However, during Smith’s
procedures is the cause of that portion of fraudulent use of the card, Green Oil was
the embezzlement that occurred following not negligent. Rather, Transmutual (the
the billing from Green Oil that contained the cardholder) was negligent in not requiring
first evidence of Smith’s fraud. that someone other than Smith examine its
monthly statements. Smith embezzled
Transmutual’s negligence leads us to money from Transmutual for three years
reexamine whether Smith acquired apparent through her fraudulent use of the GreenPlus

authority in her use of the GreenPlus card credit card. During this lengthy period of
after Transmutual became negligent. In embezzlement, Transmutual always paid its
Farmers Bank v. Wood (Franklin Ct. App. monthly bill to Green Oil.

1998), we set forth the test to determine
whether or not apparent authority exists. The Transmutual contends that it is not proper
authority must be based upon a principal’s for the court to consider the fact that
conduct which, reasonably interpreted, Transmutual paid all the Green Oil credit
causes a third person to believe that the card charges. That contention is without
agent has authority to act for the principal. merit. As a result of Transmutual’s acts of
Thus, if a principal acts or conducts his paying the charges and its failure to examine
business, either intentionally or
its credit card statements so that it could
through negligence, or fails to
disapprove of the agent’s acts or notify Green Oil of the fraud, Transmutual
course of action so as to lead the
allowed Green Oil to reasonably believe that

public to believe that his agent
possesses authority to act or contract in Smith was authorized to use the credit card.

the name of the principal, the principal
is bound by the acts of the agent within

the scope of his apparent authority as We conclude under the principles of
to persons who have reasonable
apparent authority that Transmutual is liable

grounds to believe that the agent has
such authority and in good faith deal for all of Smith’s purchases from the time
with him.
the credit card was issued.
Farmers Bank, supra.
Reversed.
18
22

Carr PT Question

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carr PT Question

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Carr PT Question

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

July 2015

Anders: Bryan, I heard your voicemail message. I’m sorry you are having problems, and I’d

ACME STATE BANK

Billing Statement: March 2015

Bryan Carr Account Number 474485AC66873641

Payment Due Date Minimum Due

DIRECT ALL INQUIRIES TO MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO

THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!

ACME STATE BANK

Billing Statement: April 2015

Bryan Carr Account Number 474485AC66873641

April 30, 2015 Payment Received $1,850.00

April 16, 2015 Corner Store $55.00

April 21, 2015 Friendly Gas Station $76.50

Payment Due Date Minimum Due

DIRECT ALL INQUIRIES TO MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO

THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!

ACME STATE BANK

Billing Statement: May 2015

Bryan Carr Account Number 474485AC66873641

May 31, 2015 Payment Received $206.50

Payment Due Date Minimum Due

DIRECT ALL INQUIRIES TO MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO

THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!

ACME STATE BANK

Billing Statement: June 2015

Bryan Carr Account Number 474485AC66873641

June 30, 2015 Payment Received $45.70

June 21, 2015 Franklin Hardware Store—power tools $1,200.00

Payment Due Date Minimum Due

DIRECT ALL INQUIRIES TO MAKE ALL CHECKS PAYABLE TO

THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS!

By defining “unauthorized use” as that actual authority. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD)

authority,” Congress intended, and courts

Amendments demonstrates Congress’s Swenson made for the non-charter flights

deception. Transmutual had sole power to Green Oil was negligent in issuing Smith the

You might also like