Discussion 1: Mutual Agreement a. Can the contract for sale be canceled because of fraud? Yes, Gortino had reckless disregard for the truth and knew his statement about the termites was false. Technically, Stein didn't even have to ask; what Gortino did was intentional concealment. b.
The liabilities BUGusa, Inc. may have with Walter’s actions are intentional tort of employee and negligence of employee. Walter is responsible for his actions, but because he is working within the scope of this employment, WIRETIME, Inc will be held liable for his actions. Keeping Steven for six hours can be considered false imprisonment and that he was threatened with bodily harm only made the case for Walter and WIRETIME, Inc worse. Walter could have received the same information by contacting a supervisor and notifying them of Steve’s actions. The first tort to discuss is intentional tort.
Contract law promotes commerce, by guaranteeing that the law protects them. If a party fails on the agreement, the plaintiff has the right to take them to court. The UCC lets the commercial party decides on what options are available if the agreement is breached by any party. If they haven’t made them, courts will, giving the injured party the incidental damages, an sometimes consequential damages. This is lost profits from business being closed, because a seller did not bring the machine for a job.
The CERCLA Windfall Lien: A Liability Trap for Unwary Purchasers of Contaminated Sites By Larry Schnapf The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002 (the “2002 Brownfield Amendments”) added a Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser (“BFPP”) defense to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) . The BFPP defense allows purchaser to knowingly take title to contaminated property provided they satisfy certain criteria but comes with an important hitch. Namely, EPA may perfect a “windfall lien” on property owned by a BFPP in certain circumstances to recover cleanup costs. This article will discuss the scope of this lien, the recent EPA guidance that discusses when the
If NewCorp is stating that his job performance was unsatisfactory, it must be documented. He should have been placed on a corrective action plan as stated by company policy in order to give him time to improve his performance to a satisfactory level in a specified time period. If his performance did not improve, then he could be terminated. Pat may have a case under the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 based on the decision regarding his dismissal. It was wrongful
The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages. Damages were incurred. (Textbook p.150) ANALYSIS The fact remain that there was an accident, an injury occurred from the accident and negligence was evident. Officer Ruthless was negligent but was justified in the decision. He had to uphold the curfew law.
| Correct Answer: | The defendant's conduct must go beyond all possible bounds of decency and be regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society. | | | | | * Question 4 0.5 out of 0.5 points | | | Which of the following is a false statement?Answer | | | | | Selected Answer: | Pursuant to a destination contract, the risk of loss typically passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier. | Correct Answer: | Pursuant to a destination contract, the risk of loss typically passes to the buyer when the goods are duly delivered to the carrier. | | | | | * Question 5 0.5 out of 0.5 points | | | What is a derivative lawsuit?Answer | | | | | Selected Answer: | An action brought by a shareholder or shareholders on behalf of the corporation when the board of directors does not file the suit. | Correct Answer: | An action brought by a shareholder or shareholders on behalf of the corporation when the board of directors does not file the suit.
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.
Yes, the should because they did not proximately cause Mr. Smith’s death. III. “To state a cause of action one must establish the defendant owed a duty of care, that defendant breaached the duty, and it proximately caused the death.” In the Espinoza case, the crew’s actions caused the Plaintiff’s death. The issue on appeal was whether their act was the proximate cause of the death. The trial court found that it was not, and granted the defendant summary judgment.
The issue to be dealt with in this problem is misrepresentation. It is therefore necessary to advise SkyReach Ltd. on the possible courses of action regarding misrepresentation. First, the ability of SkyReach Ltd. to rescind the contract on the grounds of ‘ innocent misrepresentation,’ based on the fact that Holgers statement regarding planning permission, was not a factual statement but a statement of opinion made prior to the contract. Also the possibility of a claim for damages based on the fact that Holger’s statement was non fraudulent. Each claim will be examined separately.