MINDTAP BUSINESS LAW FOR MANN/ROBERTS S
17th Edition
ISBN: 9781337094498
Author: Roberts
Publisher: IACCENGAGE
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 13, Problem 2Q
Summary Introduction
Given situation:
This case is relating to the concept of licensing statute. It is a statute requiring a person or business to obtain a government license before they engage in a specified occupation or activity.
To discuss: Whether person W would be successful against Company C for seeking to recover a fee.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
Vogel filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in March 2007. Vogel’s debts consisted of $11,000 in secured debt represented by his automobile and $35,925 in unsecured debt. Vogel’s assets on the petition dated totaled approximately $2800.00 all of which he claimed as exempted property. Vogel also reported monthly expenses of $1600. Vogel was unemployed at the time of filing and reported past earnings of $18,000 annually. In April 2007, Vogel won $130,000 in the lottery from which he received approximately $90,500.00 after taxes.
The bankruptcy Trustee instructed him not to spend it but he did; the entire amount on new vehicles and nonemergency personal expenses. Vogel continued his bankruptcy proceeding and requested discharge of his pre-petition debts. The trustee seeks dismissal of the petition based on bad faith conduct given the totality of the circumstances.
Should the Court grant the trustee’s motion to dismiss?
Does it make a difference that the lottery proceeds were…
Riffe, while serving as an officer of Wilshire Oil Company, received a secret commission for work he did on behalf of a competing corporation. Can Wilshire Oil recover these secret profits and, in addition, recover the compensation paid to Riffe by Wilshire Oil during the period that he acted on behalf of the competitor? Explain.
Walker, the CEO of Memphis Mini Golf and Go Carts (MMGGC), wanted to sell the business to Go Carts, Golf & Games. To provide a basis for the transaction, Walker retained Blanchard, an accountant, to conduct an audit of MMGGC. Blanchard was aware that Go Carts, Golf & Games would likely use the audit report in consideration of the purchase of the business from MMGGC. Blanchard's audit report showed that MMGGC’s business was profitable. William, Go Cart’s president, relied on this report in agreeing to purchase the business of MMGGC and in agreeing to the terms of the purchase. Sometime later, it was discovered that the accountant made a number of mistakes and that the business that was sold was actually insolvent. William and Go Carts sued Walker and Blanchard for damages. The suit claimed that the accountant had negligently misrepresented the facts.
Discuss the arguments for each party, determine which party should win, and provide legal support for your decision.
Chapter 13 Solutions
MINDTAP BUSINESS LAW FOR MANN/ROBERTS S
Ch. 13 - Prob. 1COCh. 13 - Prob. 2COCh. 13 - Prob. 3COCh. 13 - Prob. 4COCh. 13 - Prob. 5COCh. 13 - Prob. 1QCh. 13 - Prob. 2QCh. 13 - Prob. 3QCh. 13 - Prob. 4QCh. 13 - Prob. 5Q
Ch. 13 - Prob. 6QCh. 13 - Prob. 7QCh. 13 - Prob. 8QCh. 13 - Prob. 9QCh. 13 - Prob. 10QCh. 13 - Prob. 12CPCh. 13 - Prob. 13CPCh. 13 - Prob. 14CPCh. 13 - Prob. 15CPCh. 13 - Prob. 16CPCh. 13 - Prob. 17CPCh. 13 - Prob. 18CPCh. 13 - Prob. 19CPCh. 13 - Prob. 20CPCh. 13 - Prob. 21CPCh. 13 - Prob. 22CPCh. 13 - Prob. 23CPCh. 13 - Prob. 1TSCh. 13 - Prob. 2TSCh. 13 - Prob. 3TS
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Spence was a promoter in the incorporation of a new business. The new corporation had not yet been formed when he bought Huffman’s employment agency to serve as the nucleus of that corporation. Eventually, the corporation was formed, but it never generated enough cash to pay Huffman for the employment agency. Huffman sued Spence, attempting to hold him personally liable for the amount due. Spence claimed that the corporation was liable and that his personal assets were not a proper target of the suit. Was Spence correct? Explain.arrow_forwardZenith Steel Company operates a prosperous business. In January, Zenith’s chief executive officer (CEO) and president, Roe, who is also a member of the board, was voted a $1 million bonus by the board of directors for the valuable services he provided to the company during the previous year. Roe receives an annual salary of $850,000 from the company. Black, Inc., a minority shareholder in Zenith Steel Company, brings an appropriate action to enjoin the company from paying the $1 million bonus. Explain whether Black will succeed in its attempt.arrow_forwardPSC Metals, Inc. (PSC), entered into an agreement whereby it extended credit to Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc., and took back a security interest in personal property owned by Keystone. PSC filed a financing statement with the state, listing the debtor’s trade name, “Keystone Steel & Wire Co.,” rather than its corporate name, “Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.” When Keystone went into bankruptcy, PSC filed a motion with the bankruptcy court to obtain the personal property securing its loan. Keystone’s other creditors and the bankruptcy trustee objected, arguing that because PSC’s financing statement was defectively filed, PSC did not have a perfected security interest in the personal property. If this were true, then PSC would become an unsecured creditor in Keystone’s bankruptcy proceeding. Is the financing statement filed in the debtor’s trade name, rather than in its corporate name, effective? Explain your answer.arrow_forward
- The Johnson Company, a corporation organized under the laws of State X, after proper authorization by the shareholders, sold its entire assets to the Samson Company, also a State X corporation. Ellen, an unpaid creditor of the Johnson Company, sues the Samson Company upon her claim. Is Samson liable? Explain.arrow_forwardNova, Inc., sought to sell a new issue of common stock. It registered the issue with the Securities and Exchange Commission but included false information in both the registration statement and the prospectus. The issue was underwritten by Omega & Sons and was sold in its entirety by Periwinkle, Ramses, and Sheffield, Inc., a securities broker-dealer. Telford, who was unaware of the falsity of this information, purchased five hundred shares at $6 per share. Three months later, the falsity of the information contained in the prospectus was made public, and the price of the shares fell to $1 per share. The following week, Telford brought suit against Nova, Inc., Omega & Sons, and Periwinkle, Ramses and Sheffield, Inc., under the Securities Act of 1933. a. Who, if anyone, is liable under the Act? If liable, under which provisions? b. What defenses, if any, are available to the various defendants?arrow_forwardAndrews 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.arrow_forward
- Wells Fargo Credit Corporation (Wells Fargo) obtained a judgment of foreclosure on a house owned by Mr. and Mrs. Clevenger. The total indebtedness stated in the judgment was $207,141. The foreclosure sale was scheduled for 11:00 A.M. on a specified day at the west front door of the Hillsborough County Courthouse. Wells Fargo was represented by a paralegal, who had attended more than 1,000 similar sales. Wells Fargo’s handwritten instruction sheet informed the paralegal to make one bid at $115,000, the tax-appraised value of the property. Because the first “1” in the number was close to the “$,” the paralegal misread the bid instruction as $15,000 and opened the bidding at that amount.Harley Martin, who was attending his first judicial sale, bid $20,000. The county clerk gave ample time for another bid and then announced, “$20,000 going once, $20,000 going twice, sold to Harley… .” The paralegal screamed, “Stop, I’m sorry. I made a mistake!” The certificate of sale was issued to Martin.…arrow_forwardThe McDonald Investment Company was a corporation organized and incorporated in the state of Minnesota. The principal and only place of business from which the company conducted operations was Rush City, Minnesota. More than 80 percent of the company’s assets were located in Minnesota, and more than 80 percent of its income was derived from Minnesota. McDonald sold securities to Minnesota residents only. The proceeds from the sale were used entirely to make loans and other investments in real estate and other assets located outside the state of Minnesota. The company did not file a registration statement with the SEC. Does this offering qualify for an intrastate offering exemption from registration? Explain your answer.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
- 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?arrow_forwardcreate a principal and agency agreement that would be enforceable against the either the principal or the agent whichever you choose in your postarrow_forwardThe Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) was created as a wholly government-owned corporation to insure wheat producers against unavoidable crop failure. As required by law, the FCIC published in the Federal Register conditions for crop insurance. Specifically, the FCIC published that spring wheat reseeded on winter wheat acreage was ineligible for coverage. When farmer Merrill applied for insurance on his wheat crop, he informed the local FCIC agent that 400 of his 460 acres of spring wheat were reseeded on the winter wheat acreage. The agent advised Merrill that his entire crop was insurable. When drought destroyed Merrill’s wheat, Merrill tried to collect the insurance, but the FCIC refused to pay, asserting that Merrill is bound by the notice provided by publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. Is the FCIC correct? Explain.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet 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:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals 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