two out of three of the following legal problems Support your responses with appropriate cases, laws, and other relevant examples.
Legal Problem 1: Smith Consultants Inc. purchased a computer from Simply Computers for personal use. Smith Consultants Inc. signed an installment purchase note and a security agreement. Under the terms of the note, Smith Consultants Inc. was to pay $100 down and $50 per month for 20 months. The security agreement included a description of the computer. However, Simply Computers did not file a financing statement and Smith filed bankruptcy before paying for it.
Question: - - Can Simply Computers foreclose against the computer and obtain it from Smith- bankruptcy? Why or why not?
Legal Problem 2: On March 19, 2007, Jones, as seller, and Brown, as buyer, entered into a real estate contract for the sale of an apartment building located at 310 Main Street, Bigtown, Arizona, for a price
of $3.5 million. The contract closed on June 4, 2007. Jones told Brown that the building contained 21 apartments. Jones- real estate broker had told Brown that the building contained 21 units, and the real estate broker- information package also stated that the building contained 21 units. Neither Jones nor his
realtor stated expressly that all 21 units in the building were legally available to be converted to condos. However, Jones- real estate broker represented that the building was suitable for conversion into condos. Also, the real estate broker- package read "for condo developer, this property provides an opportunity with substantial returns. See Real Estate Broker Package, Investment Property Description."
The contract did not state the number of units in the building or warrant that the building was suitable for condo use. In fact, the contract stated:
It is understood and agreed that the Property is being sold as is; that Buyer has or will have prior to closing date inspected the Property; and that neither the Seller nor Agent makes any representation or warranty as to the physical condition or value of the Property or its suitability for the Buyer's intended.
Prior to the closing on June 4, 2007, Brown received a copy of an inspection report on the property. The report stated that an inspection had taken place on May 27, 2007, and that the apartment building contained only 20 units. On May 30, 2007, Brown wrote a letter to Jones and indicated that he had received and
read the inspection report. In this letter, Brown stated that the inspection uncovered several violations, listed each violation, and estimated the repair cost at $88,595.
In September 2007, Brown sought approval of Bigtown to convert all 21 units of the apartment building into condos. Bigtown informed Brown that 20 units could be converted, but that one of the units was an illegal apartment and must be demolished. Brown was unable to sell that unit as a condo. Brown claims that
he would not have paid $3.5 million for the building had he known that it only contained 20 legal units. Brown claimed that as a result of Jones- representation that the building containing 21 units, he sustained a loss of $100,000. An arbitration proceeding awarded Brown damages for the misrepresentation.
Jones then filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Brown filed a complaint in the bankruptcy to have the obligation on the damages from the arbitration not be discharged in bankruptcy because there was fraud involved.
Question: - - Does Brown have grounds for the obligation surviving Jones- bankruptcy? Why or why not?
Legal Problem 3: On April 6, 2006, Alfredo purchased for $75,000 a 26-foot-long speedboat named Blaster. First Phoenix Savings Bank provided $65,000 financing for this purchase. Alfredo obtained a marine yacht policy for hull insurance on the boat for $75,000 from First Florida, with First Phoenix Savings Bank being named as payee under the policy.
On May 2, 2006, Alfredo sold the boat to Juan Carlos, and Alfredo furnished First Phoenix Savings Bank with documents evidencing the sale. Carlos assumed the obligation to pay off the balance to First Phoenix Savings Bank. On October 6, 2007, Alfredo again applied to First Florida for a new yacht policy, covering the period from October 6, 2007, through October 6, 2008, and coverage extended to peril of confiscation by a government agency. Alfredo did not have ownership or possession of the boat on October 6, 2007. First Phoenix Savings Bank, the named payee, had not perfected or recorded a mortgage on Blaster until July 5,
2008.
On November 13, 2007, in waters of Belize, Blaster was found abandoned after a chase by government officials. A large shipment of cocaine was recovered, although no one was arrested. When Alfredo and First Phoenix Savings Bank were informed that Blaster was subject to mandatory forfeiture under Belize law, they
both filed claims under the October 6, 2007, insurance policy.
Question: - - What defense, if any, does the insurer have in this case?
Required:
2-3 paragraphs minimum for each question answered with detailed explanations that include case law, court cases and relevent examples
USA 
India