Case Facts And Tort Law

The Appellate and trial court decisions were affirmed and the Court found for the Defendant. The Court held that ‘piercing the corporate veil’ is invoked to ‘prevent fraud or to achieve equity’. In this case the Court found no evidence of fraud, misrepresentation nor illegality. Although the defendant controlled Westerlea’s affairs, Westerlea maintained an outward appearance of aDseparate corporate identity at all times. Further, the creditors were not misled, there was no fraud, and Defendant performed no act to cause injury to the creditors of Westerlea by depletion of assets or otherwise.

The main issue in this case occurs when CenCo Inc. refuses to pay Eric. Eric was hired to design a webpage for the company for $400 and he also trouble-shooted the operating systems of CenCo Inc. for an additional $400. CenCo Inc. promised to pay Eric until he performed the work but when he did, CenCo Inc. refused to do so. Eric decided to file a suit against them but since the contract was made orally, CenCo does not want to respond.

Any loan given to a client because the reliance of the financial statements assured their eligibility, make the accountants that were responsible for making sure the financial statements are accurate, liable. This was mentioned in the 1965 Restatement of Torts, in which the law states that any professional or business is liable if the information that was relied on causes a loss without the other party knowing the loss would occur. Mona knew the financial statements and reports were going to be used for a loan, even if she did not know what bank was giving the loan or even how much the loan was. Mona was aware and knew the purpose behind her audit reports. Due to the fact that she did not foresee what her audit reports were going to be used for and the extent to where it would end up, Mona would be liable to Wright Machinery or any other third party for that matter because it is outside of the area of interest in which she knows exactly what her statements and reports would be meant

The fundamental question presented by the case is if Albion C. Cranson, Jr. is a partner with Real Estate Service Bureau and therefore liable for the debts incurred in purchasing typewriters form IBM. Albion C. Cranson, Jr. contended that the Real Estate Service “Bureau was a de facto corporation and that he was not personally liable for its debts “(Warner, et al., 2012, p 693).  Furthermore, it is stated “The fundamental question presented by the appeal is whether an officer of a defectively incorporated association may be subjected to personal liability under the circumstances of this case” (p. 694). The decision was that Cranson was not liable for the debt because “I.B.M. is estopped to deny the corporate existence of the Bureau, we hold

Concerns have arisen of a possible lawsuit involving an area of law known as negligence and liability. This memo outlines the principles of this area of law in order to be properly prepared should the firm face any legal consequences. It aims to illustrate under what circumstances can the firm be affected with potential legal action in this area.

(Alice) and CLS Bank International et al (CLS Bank). The question in this case asks whether a patent

SureCo, Inc., would be defendant in a suit brought on by the policy owners but because of the principal/agent relationship, more specifically the duty to perform, Franco would also be a defendant in a case brought on by SureCo, Inc., for being compensated for the money

Defendants sold the company to themselves (a3 Agreement for Sale and Purchase of a Business, page 119, BD; ref. para. 5,6,7,DC judgment, page3,RD)

Am hereby addressing you regarding the inclusion of the lawsuit in the year’s financial statement of the Gadget Inc. The pending litigation can be a significant potential liability to the company. The lack of disclosure of such liabilities has cause misunderstanding between the auditors, company CEOs, and the users of the financial statements. Auditors are supposed to access the suitability of the financial statement disclosures regarding the pending litigations. However, this is one of difficult tasks as the auditor’s efforts to do so depends upon receiving the information from company’s attorneys. The auditor therefore should seek the information from the company’s attorney before disclosing pending litigation as a liability in the company’ financial statement.

Ronald, the plaintiff, could sue Stockfans Pty Ltd (‘Stockfans’), the defendant, in negligence for the failure to implement a proper fire safety system in their shopping centre which caused personal injury to the plaintiff in the form of a severe respiratory condition. Negligence occurs when a defendant has a legal duty to take care and breaches that duty (Stockfans) causing damage to the plaintiff (Ronald).

The Plaintiffs engaged the Third Defendant as their solicitor to advise them. In consequence of his advice, the Plaintiffs signed the Onehunga agreement.

The example suggests that computer professionals were immune from suit before 2011. Moreover, it can be disputed that the shield of immunity was abused by the Mr Callaghan as he changed his statements, which subsequently caused Mr Stanton a loss of money. It can also be argued that the “expert is instructed as a professional and is paid for his work” (Brown, 2010), therefore if their job is done negligently, then the claimant should be entitled to some compensation.

Can you elect to recover your damages from the resort only, even though Tex and Rex were primarily responsible for your injuries?

Clinicient Inc is an EMR software company which provides electronic medical record system to physical therapy offices. As a part of its services Clinicient also offers billing and payment collections from insurance companies for the customers it serves. This company is incorporated meaning that it is not owned by one person or a partnership, instead it has shareholders and is run by a board of directors. This company is currently involved in a number of lawsuits by former customers as well as some former employees. The most common suit against it happens to be from former customers who feel that Clinicient did not provide the services it was contracted to provide. Clinicient failed to bill out claims in a timely manner, failed to follow-up on claims that were not paid due to billing or documentation errors or issues, failed to correct problems or notify the customer of existing issues, and transferred payments received to the wrong customer accounts causing financial issues for affected customers. As a result a civil suit has been filed with the court against Clinicient for breach of contract. The customer has filed a complaint with the court and Clinicient’s legal department has been notified. A response has been filed with the court on behave of Clinicient and both parties have completed the discovery process. “Preparing for trial takes place as part of the discovery process.” (Gray, 2007). “For civil discovery requests, the private interest to be affected by the