Whether person M will be fruitful in a law suit in contrast to person P and why.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 6Q

Summary Introduction

To discuss: Whether person M will be fruitful in a law suit in contrast to person P and why.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Andrews and Brown hired a bookkeeper, Jenice, and gave her general authority to issue company checks drawn on SunTrust Bank so that Jenice can pay employees’ wages and other company bills. Jenice decides to cheat her employers out of $10,000 by issuing a check payable to the Bayside Distributors, one of the suppliers of seafood and fresh local produce. Jenice does not intend for Bayside to receive any of the money, nor is Bayside entitled to the payment. Jenice endorses the check in Bayside’s name and deposits the check in an account that she opened at Wells Fargo Bank in the name “Bayfood Dist. Co.” Wells Fargo accepts the check and collects payment from the drawee bank, SunTrust. SunTrust charges [Name of Restaurant] account $10,000. Denice transfers $10,000 out of the Bayside account and closes it. [Name of Restaurant] discovers the fraud and demands that the bank return the money. Evaluate which party or parties bear the loss.

Sheila owned an old roadside building that she believed could be easily converted into an antique shop. She talked to her friend Barbara, an antique fancier, and they executed the following written agreement: a. Sheila would supply the building, all utilities, and $100,000 capital for purchasing antiques. b. Barbara would supply $30,000 for purchasing antiques, Sheila would repay her when the business terminated. c. Barbara would manage the shop, make all purchases, and receive a salary of $500 per week plus 5 percent of the gross receipts. d. Fifty percent of the net profits would go into the purchase of new stock. The balance of the net profits would go to Sheila. e. The business would operate under the name “Roadside Antiques.” Business went poorly, and after one year, a debt of $40,000 is owed to Old Fashioned, Inc., the principal supplier of antiques purchased by Barbara in the name of Roadside Antiques. Old Fashioned sues Roadside Antiques, and Sheila and Barbara as partners.…

In 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…