Tort and Bad Boy

3317 WordsFeb 25, 201314 Pages
MANDATES Piec vs. Caisse d’economie polonaise (p. 59) (MIDTERM 2) Grandma = Stephania Wojcicka Bad Boy = nephew Tadeusz Wojcicki Niece (Margaret Wojcicka) is executor of will |Facts |Three mandates: | | |Gma goes on extended trip, gives power of attorney for banking matters to Bad Boy | | |Niece has mandate as executor of the will (mandate only kicks in when Gma dies) | | |Bank has mandate for Gma’s finances | |…show more content…
Did Bates set up company to defraud 146400 of rent money? | |Ratio |1. Argument: Bates faked that company was profitable (fraud); Judge says that principle place for NT-Can in QC is| | |at NT-QC address; companies guarantee each other’s debts; annual reports are identical, both represented by | | |Bates. A company is its own person, Bates didn’t treat it as such. Answer: [317] says you can’t set up a | | |company to defraud a third party, Bates did, so as the shareholder he’s personally liable for unpaid rents | |Decision |Bates has to pay rent owing | Lease by tolerance – produces legal obligation. Problem: We don’t know who moved in. Landlord is receiving rents from network transport the parent company when things start going bad, rent stops – the landlord sues: the person who was paying the rent: parent company Piercing of the corporate veil CONTRACTS Giroux vs. Malik (p. 86) |Facts |Malik informed agents in 1992 and 1995 sales attempts about issue with building on the land – the land never sold| | |Malik less forthcoming with

More about Tort and Bad Boy

Open Document