Asked by Jawwad Siddiqui on May 08, 2024
Verified
If the reasoning of the case in the text, Athanasios Valsamis v. Néstor González-Romero is followed, what would Janet have to prove in court?
A) Janet does not have to prove anything, as the burden would shift to Bruce to prove an agreement did not exist.
B) Janet must prove money is due and Bruce is the responsible party.
C) Janet must prove money is due.
D) Janet must prove The Burger Bar is the responsible party.
E) Janet must prove money is due and The Burger Bar is the responsible party.
Burden Of Proof
The obligation to prove one's assertion or claim in a legal proceeding.
Responsible Party
The individual or entity legally obligated or held accountable in a particular situation or for a specific act.
- Examine the judicial results associated with conflicts concerning negotiable instruments.
Verified Answer
SS
Savannah StaffordMay 12, 2024
Final Answer :
B
Explanation :
Janet must prove that money is due and that Bruce, in his individual capacity, is the responsible party for the repayment of the loan. This involves demonstrating the existence of the loan agreement and Bruce's personal responsibility for its repayment.
Learning Objectives
- Examine the judicial results associated with conflicts concerning negotiable instruments.