Jones purchase the stock of Smithon outright leaving Smithon intact? The stock should not be purchase by Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones acquiring the assets, liabilities and also would inherit the contractual obligations of the selling corporation, would, be the results of the purchase. In lay terms, he has bought the existing Smithon Corporation and he is responsible of ensuring daily operations run efficiently but the tax aspect of acquisition he is responsible for existing and any future tax liabilities that the selling corporation had. It would be my advice for Mr. Jones to not buy the stock because of the liability of current and future tax obligations which Mr. Jones would incur from the purchase of the stock.
rejection by entering into a substitute transaction, he is excused from performance obligations B. Determined by Little condition is not completely within the promisor's control C. Sufficient cause An agreement that gives one party an unfettered right to terminate at any time will be interpreted to require “reasonable notice,” thus placing a limitation on that party's freedom sufficient to satisfy the consideration requirement 1. Certain terms (open) buyer is constrained to request amounts that are not unreasonably disproportional there is clearly consideration for the modification and it is enforceable the modern rule, an offer for a unilateral contract becomes an option for the offeree 2.
E&Y reasoned this as it creates an exception to the general rule of reserving for expected future product returns at the gross sales price and deferring the recognition of an equal amount of revenue. This justification is invalid. The company’s customers are not “ultimate customers,” but are wholesalers that sold their product to retailers. In addition, Medicis’s returns were not returns of products in exchange for products of “the same kind, quality, and price,” but of unsalable product for
Leah Earp 1. Ronderos should win the lawsuit because the property was rightfully Schock’s already and Ronderos is not a merchant therefore the risk of loss is Schock’s. 6. The dealer cannot reclaim the automobile because the buy was a good faith purchaser and the dealer can only make a lawsuit against B. 10.
This would be important for accounts receivable - money that is owed by a customer for products/services. Representing a company in small claims court requires one to be familiar with the law and how it relates to accounting practices. In the Mack v. Edenwold Fertilizer Services Ltd. case, if Mack had a knowledgeable accountant that was familiar with the law, he may have been advised not to sue as the illegality of the situation would have resulted in a loss. In turn, this advise would have saved Mack both time and
The state of Confusion enacted a law to control commerce that the federal government had not regulated for some time. However, Confusion’s regulation cannot improperly inconvenience interstate commerce because it would be unconstitutional. Tanya Trucker’s Road to Succeeding Tanya Trucker’s likelihood of prevailing in this case is optimistic. The fact that Confusion is executing an unconstitutional act by initiating a statute to require B-type truck hitches on their roadways gives Trucker a legal advantage to succeed in a civil suit. The State of Confusion would have to generate a constitutionally valid reason for requiring B-type truck hitches not only in their state, but also on all national roadways.
DECISION: Affirmed in favor of appellee (Durham). Refund of purchase price affirmed. DISCUSSION: Appellants claim that there was evidence that they held good title or at leas voidable title and therefore had the right to sell. Court finds it unequivocal that a person who has goods of another cannot pass title whether such other knew or did not know that goods were stolen. It is undisputed that the automobile is stolen and title is void.
Under the Securities Act of 1933, the MIFT does not automatically fall into the category of exempt securities, so the company must still file a offering statement with the SEC to avoid penalties. Next, we developed an analytical Matrix that assisted us in deciphering between security law exemptions the company could leverage, and how they would realistically apply to Viscotech’s situation (see Exhibit 2). After analyzing the security laws pertaining to the issuance of securities, we decided their best option was the Regulation A offering to exempt the transaction from registration. It would have allowed the company to “test the waters” through a provision of Regulation A offering which allows companies to publish or deliver a written offering circular, radio broadcast, or television broadcast to prospective investors to gauge their interest before filing an offering statement with the SEC and taking on the fees necessary to do so. However, an offering statement would have needed to be submitted to the SEC and cleared before actually raising money through the Regulation A offering.
Specifically he would like to deduct it other than as a miscellaneous itemized deduction, which would give him no tax benefit due to the Alternative Minimum Tax. Discussion and conclusion: Since Joshua’s damage award is considered part of his gross income, the concern is whether he can deduct the contingency- based attorneys fees. If the damage incurred in connection with a trade or business, than he would be able to deduct this expense on schedule C, assuming he is self-employed. Or he can deduct it as a miscellaneous itemized deduction; due to the fact that he is subject to the
EXCEPTIONS: overcome rule by finding a REAL promise - frame illusory promise as unilateral contract => enforceable ex. Gurfein (99): had window to cancel, but didn’t => enforceable ➢ COULD HAVE bound other party if exercise option - Implied promises ➢ UCC §2-306 (2): a contract to engage in exclusive dealing gives rise to an implied promise to use best efforts Ex. Wood v. Lucy (104): mkt designs for profits ➢ ct implied promise: to make reasonable efforts b/c w/o implied promise, the contract would be meaningless b/c structural agreement = incentive to use best effort is built in Ex. Grouse (110): promised at-will job, not allowed to start work ➢ implied promise in at-will jobs = “good faith opportunity to perform satisfactorily’ - Structural agreements Ex. Lacledes(106): supply propane for long period ➢ although not bound to purchase, practical binding exists ➢ pipes connected to Amoco supply source ➢ hostage theory of contracts: voluntarily