Lms Integrated Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card For Mann/roberts’ Smith And Roberson’s Business Law, 17th
17th Edition
ISBN: 9781337094566
Author: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 11, Problem 17CP
Summary Introduction
Case summary: Person I is the owner of motor company I dealt in the repairs as well as the vending of Oldsmobile. Person W entered to a contract to purchase motor company I, which person I said comprised the franchise of Oldsmobile. After the sale, though, Motors G repudiated to transfer the franchise to person W. Then person W returned the property to person I and bought this action seeking recession of the contract.
To discuss: Whether the agreement be withdrawing.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionStudents have asked these similar questions
Tri R Angus, a closely held corporation, was owned 80 percent by Jon and Frances Neiman, who were also directors of Tri R Angus. Troy Neiman and Carol Lewis owned 12 percent of Tri R Angus’s shares. Troy and Carol asked a court to remove Jon and Frances as directors of the corporation on the grounds that they authorized Tri R Angus to distribute its assets in violation of state law, inappropriately mortgaged or sold corporate assets, misused corporate earnings, and wasted corporate assets. Jon and Frances denied the allegations. At trial, Troy and Carol entered as evidence pleadings from other actions against Jon and Frances and introduced no objective evidence of current conduct by Jon or Frances. What standard of misconduct did the court require Troy and Carol to prove in order to remove Jon and Frances? Did the court find they had proved their case?
Johnson and Wilson were the principal shareholders in Matthew Corporation, located in the city of Jonesville, Wisconsin. This corporation was engaged in the business of manufacturing paper novelties, which were sold over a wide area in the Midwest. The corporation was also in the business of binding books. Johnson purchased Wilson’s shares of the Matthew Corporation, and in consideration thereof, Wilson agreed that for a period of two years he would not (a) manufacture or sell in Wisconsin any paper novelties of any kind that would compete with those sold by the Matthew Corporation or (b) engage in the bookbinding business in the city of Jonesville. Discuss the validity and effect, if any, of this agreement.
Hutchins and O’Neil, as general partners in the Haddon View Investment Co., became limited partners in Car Wash Investments. The general partner in Car Wash was the Minit Man Development Company. Coopers and Lybrand accountants handled the accounting work for both Minit Man and Car Wash. They performed audits and prepared financial statements that allegedly revealed two healthy companies. Nevertheless, both Car Wash and Minit Man went out of business. As a result, Hutchins and O’Neil lost a total of $252,000. They sued Coopers and Lybrand, alleging malpractice, breach of contract, concealment, fraud, and deceit in the accountants’ work for Car Wash and Minit Man. Coopers and Lybrand argued that Hutchins and O’Neil could not sue the firm because Car Wash and Minit Man were the clients, not Hutchins and O’Neil. Were the accountants correct?
Chapter 11 Solutions
Lms Integrated Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card For Mann/roberts’ Smith And Roberson’s Business Law, 17th
Ch. 11 - Prob. 1COCh. 11 - Prob. 2COCh. 11 - Prob. 3COCh. 11 - Prob. 4COCh. 11 - Prob. 5COCh. 11 - Prob. 1QCh. 11 - Prob. 2QCh. 11 - Prob. 3QCh. 11 - Prob. 4QCh. 11 - Prob. 5Q
Ch. 11 - Prob. 6QCh. 11 - Prob. 7QCh. 11 - Prob. 8QCh. 11 - Prob. 9QCh. 11 - Prob. 10CPCh. 11 - Prob. 11CPCh. 11 - Prob. 12CPCh. 11 - Prob. 13CPCh. 11 - Prob. 14CPCh. 11 - Prob. 15CPCh. 11 - Prob. 16CPCh. 11 - Prob. 17CPCh. 11 - Prob. 18CPCh. 11 - Prob. 19CPCh. 11 - Prob. 20CPCh. 11 - Prob. 21CPCh. 11 - Prob. 22CPCh. 11 - Prob. 23CPCh. 11 - Prob. 1TSCh. 11 - Prob. 2TSCh. 11 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Mork and Mindy create a for-profit corporation, Mork's House, to provide shelter to homeless and abused women and children. Mork and Mindy are shareholders of the corporation. Zada is also a shareholder in the corporation, along with five others. Douglas manages the day-to-day operations of the corporation. The bylaws of the corporation provide that the corporation is established for the sole purpose of providing shelter, food, and care for homeless and abused women and children and for no other purpose. When the refrigerator in Mork's House stops working, Douglas purchases a new refrigerator from Home Depot and charges it to the corporation. If Zada challenges the purchase as being ultra vires: she will lose, because purchasing the refrigerator is an express power of the corporation. she will lose, because purchasing the refrigerator is an act reasonably necessary to accomplish the goals. she will win, because the bylaws do not address purchases of appliances. she will win, because…arrow_forwardAnthony and Karen were partners doing business as the Petite Garment Company. Leroy owned a dye plant that did much of the processing for the company. Anthony and Karen decided to offer Leroy an interest in their company, in consideration for which Leroy would contribute his dye plant to the partnership. Leroy accepted the offer and was duly admitted as a partner. At the time he was admitted as a partner, Leroy did not know that the partnership was on the verge of insolvency. About three months after Leroy was admitted to the partnership, a textile firm obtained a judgment against the partnership in the amount of $50,000. This debt represented an unpaid balance that had existed before Leroy was admitted as a partner.The textile firm brought an action to subject the partnership property, including the dye plant, to the satisfaction of its judgment. The complaint also requested that, in the event the judgment was unsatisfied by sale of the partnership property, Leroy’s home be sold and…arrow_forwardPaul Bunyan is the owner of noncumulative 8 percent preferred stock in the Broadview Corporation, which had no earnings or profits in 2012. In 2013, the corporation had large profits and a surplus from which it might properly have declared dividends. The directors refused to do so, however, instead using the surplus to purchase goods necessary for the corporation’s expanding business. The corporation earned a small profit in 2014. The directors at the end of 2014 declared a 10 percent dividend on the common stock and an 8 percent dividend on the preferred stock without paying preferred dividends for 2013. a. Is Bunyan entitled to dividends for 2012? For 2013? b. Is Bunyan entitled to a dividend of 10 percent rather than 8 percent in 2014?arrow_forward
- Chris and Maurice formed a new limited liability company and invested $1,000,000 of equity in an apartment building in Santa Ana, California with Chris investing $950,000 and Maurice $50,000. Their LLC operating agreement provided that: (A) the annual cash distributions would be split 90% to Chris and 10% to Maurice, and (B) the net cash proceeds from the sale of the property would be distributed first to each of them until they have received an amount equal to their original cash investments less any cash distributions they had previously received, then the balance of the net sale proceeds would be split 60%/40% between Chris and Maurice. How much would Maurice receive upon the sale of the property if the sale generates net cash proceeds of $3,250,000 after paying off the mortgage loan, the brokerage commission, and other closing costs, and if the LLC had previously distributed $400,000 collectively to Chris and Maurice? a. $1,110,000 b. $2,180,000 c.$1,060,000 d. $1,070,000arrow_forwardPritchard & Baird was a reinsurance broker. A reinsurance broker arranges contracts between insurance companies so that companies that have sold large policies may sell participations in these policies to other companies in order to share the risks. Charles Pritchard, who died in December 2011, controlled Pritchard & Baird for many years. Prior to his death, he brought his two sons, Charles Jr. and William, into the business. The pair assumed an increas ingly dominant role in the affairs of the business during the elder Charles’s later years. Starting in 2008, Charles Jr. and William began to withdraw from the corporate account ever-increasing sums that were designated as “loans” on the balance sheet. These “loans,” however, represented a significant misappropriation of funds belonging to the corporation’s clients. By late 2013, Charles Jr. and William had plunged the corporation into hopeless bankruptcy. A total of $12,333,514.47 in “loans” had accumulated by October of that…arrow_forwardIn August, Victoria Air Conditioning, Inc. (VAC), entered into a subcontract for insulation services with Southwest Texas Mechanical Insulation Company (SWT), a partnership comprising Charlie Jupe and Tommy Nabors. In February of the following year, Jupe and Nabors dissolved the partnership, but VAC did not receive notice of the dissolution at that time. Sometime later, insulation was removed from Nabors’s premises to Jupe’s possession and Jupe continued the insulation project with VAC. From then on, Nabors had no more involvement with SWT. One month later, Nabors informed VAC’s project manager, Von Behrenfeld, that Nabors was no longer associated with SWT, had formed his own insulation company, and was interested in bidding on new jobs. Subsequently, SWT failed to perform the subcontract and Jupe could not be found. VAC brought suit for breach of contract against SWT, Jupe, and Nabors. Nabors claims that several letters and change orders introduced by both parties show that VAC knew…arrow_forward
- Little Switzerland Brewing Company was incorporated on January 28. On February 18, Ellison and Oxley were made directors of the company after they purchased some stock. Then on September 25, Ellison and Oxley signed stock subscription agreements to purchase five thousand shares each. Under the agreement, they both issued a note that indicated that they would pay for the stock “at their discretion.” Two years later in March, the board of directors passed a resolution canceling the stock subscription agreements of Ellison and Oxley. The creditors of Little Switzerland brought suit against Ellison and Oxley to recover the money owed under the subscription agreements. Are Ellison and Oxley liable? Why or why not?arrow_forwardMichael Ross formed a limited partnership with his father-in-law, Robert Zane, to open a seafood restaurant in a mid-western town. Mr. Ross was the general partner and Mr. Zane was a limited partner and invested $100,000. After one year, difficulties in the restaurant’s operation caused business to drop off, and Mr. Ross called Mr. Zane for advice. After hearing of the difficulties and concerned with the security of his investment, Mr. Zane traveled to visit the operation. After observing the operation for two days, the two partners jointly decided to launch a large and expensive television ad campaign to increase lagging sales. Mr. Zane designed the campaign with the help of Brandon Advertising and Video, a local advertising agency specializing in television commercials. Despite an immediate increase in sales, volume continued to decline, and finally, three months after the ad campaign launched, the restaurant closed its doors. Total debts at the time the restaurant closed equaled…arrow_forwardDennis and Donna Smith owned a 10-acre tract of land that they decided to sell. The couple entered into a listing agreement with Kelly McLaughlin, a licensed real estate broker. The agreement gave Kelly the exclusive right to sell the property for a period of 6 months. The Smiths agreed to pay Kelly a 6% commission of the selling price if a buyer was found during the listing period. Four months later, the Smiths sent Kelly a letter terminating the listing agreement. Kelly did not approve of the conditions. One month later, Kelly presented a full price offer to the Smiths; however, they ignored the offer and sold the property to another buyer. Kelly sued the Smiths for breach of the agency agreement. Which party wins the lawsuit? Did the Smiths act ethically in this case?arrow_forward
- Marvie, Kim, Clarence, and Goldie Tschetter purchased units in Huron Kitchen LLC, a limited liability company, which would construct and own a Country Kitchen restaurant in South Dakota. As members of an LLC, they had management powers in proportion to their contributions of capital and could elect the managers of the LLC and set the managers’ responsibilities. As LLC members, the Tschetters agreed to hire Country Hospitality Corporation to do much of the operation of the LLC. The LLC Operating Agreement required that the day-to-day decisions were made by two managers, who were required to be members of the LLC and were selected by the other members. Members could authorize loans on behalf of the company by agreement. The members had the right to receive profits and distributions when warranted. The members could authorize incidental expenses within an aggregate of $12,500. The members were empowered to make any other routine actions incidental to the day-to-day activity of the LLC.…arrow_forwardGlenn refuses an invitation to become a partner of Dorothy and Cynthia in a retail grocery business. Nevertheless, Dorothy inserts an advertisement in the local newspaper representing Glenn as their partner. Glenn takes no steps to deny the existence of a partnership between them. Ron, who extended credit to the firm, seeks to hold Glenn liable as a partner. Is Glenn liable? Explain.arrow_forwardCharles and L. W. Clement were brothers who had formed a partnership that lasted forty years until Charles discovered that his brother, who kept the partnership’s books, had made several substantial personal investments with funds improperly withdrawn from the partnership. He then brought an action in equity seeking dissolution of the partnership, appointment of a receiver, and an accounting. Should Charles succeed? Explain.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill EducationManagement (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSONSpreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...ManagementISBN:9781305947412Author:Cliff RagsdalePublisher:Cengage Learning
- Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...ManagementISBN:9780135191798Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. LaudonPublisher:PEARSONBusiness Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSONFundamentals of Management (10th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134237473Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De CenzoPublisher:PEARSON
Understanding Business
Management
ISBN:9781259929434
Author:William Nickels
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134527604
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter
Publisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet Modeling & Decision Analysis: A Pract...
Management
ISBN:9781305947412
Author:Cliff Ragsdale
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Management Information Systems: Managing The Digi...
Management
ISBN:9780135191798
Author:Kenneth C. Laudon, Jane P. Laudon
Publisher:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...
Management
ISBN:9780134728391
Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. Griffin
Publisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals of Management (10th Edition)
Management
ISBN:9780134237473
Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. Coulter, David A. De Cenzo
Publisher:PEARSON