Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
17th Edition
ISBN: 9781337094757
Author: Richard A. Mann, Barry S. Roberts
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 31, Problem 19CP
Summary Introduction
Case summary:
This case deals with a two persons, Person D and Person S opening up a Company L under
To discuss: Whether the partnership dissolution relives Person D for personal liability of accounts.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionStudents have asked these similar questions
Anthony 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…
The Cutler Company was duly merged into the Stone Company. Yetta, a shareholder of the former Cutler Company, having paid only one-half of her subscription, is now sued by the Stone Company for the balance of the subscription. Yetta, who took no part in the merger proceedings, denies liability on the ground that, inasmuch as the Cutler Company no longer exists, all her rights and obligations in connection with the Cutler Company have been terminated. Explain whether she is correct.
Charles 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his brother, who kept the partnership’s books, had made several substantial personal investments with funds improperly withdrawn from the partnership.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.
Chapter 31 Solutions
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Albert, Betty, and Carol own and operate the Roy Lumber Company, a limited liability partnership (LLP). Each contributed one-third of the capital, and they share equally in the profits and losses. Their LLP agreement provides that all purchases exceeding $2,500 must be authorized in advance by two partners and that only Albert is authorized to draw checks. Unknown to Albert or Carol, Betty purchases on the firm’s account a $5,500 diamond bracelet and a $5,000 forklift and orders $5,000 worth of logs, all from Doug, who operates a jewelry store and is engaged in various activities connected with the lumber business. Before Betty made these purchases, Albert told Doug that Betty is not the log buyer. Albert refuses to pay Doug for Betty’s purchases. Doug calls at the mill to collect, and Albert again refuses to pay him. Doug calls Albert an unprintable name, and Albert then punches Doug in the nose, knocking him out. While Doug is lying unconscious on the ground, an employee of Roy…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_forwardThe stock in Hotel Management, Inc., a hotel management corporation, was divided equally between two families. For several years, the two families had been unable to agree on or cooperate in the management of the corporation. As a result, no meeting of shareholders or directors had been held for five years. There had been no withdrawal of profits for five years, and last year the hotel operated at a loss. Although the corporation was not insolvent, such a state was imminent because the business was poorly managed and its properties were in need of repair. As a result, the owners of half the stock brought an action in equity for dissolution of the corporation. Will they succeed? Explain.arrow_forward
- Chaiken entered into separate but nearly identical agreements with Strazella and Spitzer to operate a barbershop. Under the terms of the “partnership” agreements, Chaiken would provide barber chairs, supplies, and licenses, while the other two would provide tools of the trade. The agreements also stated that gross returns from the partnership were to be divided on a percentage basis among the three men and that Chaiken would decide all matters of partnership policy. Finally, the agreements stated hours of work and holidays for Strazella and Spitzer and required Chaiken to hold and distribute all receipts. a. What are the arguments that Strazella and Spitzer are partners with Chaiken? b. What are the arguments that Strazella and Spitzer are employees of Chaiken? c. Explain which arguments should prevail.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_forwardAnderson and Tallstrom are partners in Rancho Murieta Investors (RMI). Anderson owns 80 percent of RMI; Tallstrom owns the other 20 percent and is the managing partner of RMI. Hellman obtained judgments against Anderson in his individual capacity for more than $440,000. After various unsuccessful attempts to enforce the judgments, Hellman obtained an “Order Charging Debtor John B. Anderson’s Partnership Interest” in RMI. Despite the charging order, Hellman has not received any monies in satisfaction of the judgments because RMI had not generated profits and was not expected to do so in the near future. Explain what Hellman’s rights are with respect to the unsatisfied charging order.arrow_forward
- Paul 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_forwardMerger The board of directors of Plant Indus-tries, Inc. ( Plant), under the guidance of Robert B. Bregman, the chief executive officer of the corporation, embarked on a course of action that resulted in the sale of several unprofitable subsidiaries. Bregman then engaged in a course of action to sell Plant National ( Quebec) Ltd., a subsidiary that constituted Plant’s entire Canadian operations. This was a profitable subsidiary that comprised more than 50 percent of Plant’s assets, sales, and profits. Do Plant’s shareholders have to be ac-corded voting and appraisal rights regarding the sale of this subsidiary?arrow_forwardVIOLETS Company purchased 5,000 shares of POPPY Company par ₱100 at ₱120 in March 2020 VIOLETS received a share dividend of 1 share for every 5 owned on August 30, 2020. On September 15, 2020, the firm received a cash dividend of ₱10 per share. On October 1, 2020, VIOLETS was granted the right to purchase 1 share at ₱105 for every 4 rights held. The share had a market value of ₱115 and the right had a value of ₱5 on the date the rights were received. On December 15, 2020, the company sold 2,000 rights at ₱7.50 and exercised the remaining rights. What is the average unit cost of the total investment as of December 31, 2020?arrow_forward
- Sayre learned that Adams, Boone, and Chase were planning to form a corporation for the purpose of manufacturing and marketing a line of novelties to wholesale outlets. Sayre had patented a self-locking gas tank cap but lacked the financial backing to market it profitably. He negotiated with Adams, Boone, and Chase, who agreed to purchase the patent rights for $5,000 in cash and two hundred shares of $100 par value preferred stock in a corporation to be formed. The corporation was formed and Sayre’s stock issued to him, but the corporation has refused to make the cash payment. It has also refused to declare dividends, although the business has been very profitable because of Sayre’s patent and has a substantial earned surplus with a large cash balance on hand. It is selling the remainder of the originally authorized issue of preferred shares, ignoring Sayre’s demand to purchase a proportionate number of these shares. What are Sayre’s rights, if any?arrow_forwardSpence 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_forward
arrow_back_ios
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