One could argue though, that receiving a five year employment borderlines financial benefits especially given the worsening financial position of Pharma. Adams and Barker also lacked diligence in investigating the proposal, decision, and transaction and never consulted outside experts. “Directors’ and officers’ decision-making procedures must be set up in a way that allows careful decisions to be made regarding the best interests of the corporation”. (The Legal Environment of Business, 2011) The argument could be made both ways about protection by the business judgment rule concerning rational belief. For Pharma to survive and become viable it was obvious that some decisions had to be made, but was the sale of the assets in the best interest of the corporation, or was it in the best interest of Adams and Barker?
This was the first audit that ZZZZ Best had as a public company and the mistake involved the inspection of the insurance restoration sites. Mr. Greenspan had talked with Tom Padgett, and even though Mr. Padgett confirmed the insurance contracts were real and showed proper documents to back them up, Mr. Greenspan never actually inspected any of the actual insurance restoration sites. Had the sites been checked, Mr. Greenspan could have stopped the scam from ever hurting the public stockholders. After looking at this mistake, Greenspan should have made it a very high priority to inspect the insurance sites, especially because they amounted for such a huge percentage of income for ZZZZ Best. The second mistake involved Ernst & Whinney, which was the auditor for ZZZZ Best after Greenspan was let go.
Contingencies beyond the control of Little to be sufficient excuse for failure to comply with the contract. Dated: September 12, (Two years ago.) /s/ Giant Company President /s/ Little Company President” Giant has used Little to supply candy coating for two years. It has placed 14 orders and has been charged a different price each time. All orders have been delivered on time.
DMBA 610 Knowledge Integration Assignment Spring 2012 1 (a) Under the law, how much profit is Boyd entitled to? Why? (200 words or fewer) Although the partners did not file an agreement with the state, they had agreement that expenses and profits will be shared 50:50 and since no changes were made to that initial agreement it still stands. Each partner is entitled to 50% of the profits, “Their agreement can be express or implied,” (Bagley & Savage 2010). Based on the agreement Boyd is entitled to 50% of the profits 1 (b) At the time Raylan and Boyd are winding down the business, Sassy Sauces demands payment for the BBQ sauce.
One needs to consider whether the sinking of the ship was an isolated event that was easily corrected, or whether it was a serious flaw that would require costly repairs. What needs to be answered regarding the flaw is whether the vendor, Captain Jack Sparrow, should have been aware of such a flaw; that is, was the flaw as a result of a patent or latent defect. If such defect was latent, was it known to the vendor. At common law, Davey Jones should also consider the principles of product liability, a branch of negligence law, arguing that Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. sold him a defective product that was not fit for its intended and known purpose. Davey Jones could also argue misrepresentation—he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations made about the quality of the ship.
By doing this, we can be seen that this transaction is for commercial purpose, so the profit for selling two lots which is $400,000 is added to assessable income (FCT v Whitfords Beach Pty Ltd-82 ATC 403). Conclusion: In conclusion, the first transaction is not assessable income because it has been acquired before 20th September 1985. Due to Mary had merely realized its capital assets, so the second transaction is not assessable income as well. And under The Taxation Ruling TR92/3, the third transaction is assessable income by showing the action is for commercial
Terminal assigned its rights to Wells Fargo (plaintiff). Terminal never paid a portion of the $250,000. Brooks refused to make monthly payments and Wells Fargo sued. Parties moved for summary judgement. Court ruled in favor of Wells Fargo, brooks appealed ISSUE: Even though a company is acting in good faith should they be held liable for contract duties?
Sunoco is probably going to be held strictly liable for the clean-up costs, even though it appears that the leak occurred prior to his purchase of the property. However, as in White, where the present owner was able to sue a previous owner who had actually caused and contributed to the discharge, under §181(1) and §181(5) Mr. Sunoco may be able to apportion his liability. Although there is no definitive time frame as to when the leak occurred, the odds that it occurred the same day Mr. Sunoco purchased the gas station is astronomical. Therefore, it is likely that the USTs have been leaking since Mr. Tesoro was the owner, allowing Mr. Sunoco to sue Mr. Tesoro in strict liability for cleanup costs and damages to the community. Further, Mr. Sunoco may also be able to share liability and sue Lukoil, since Lukoil is the present operator of the gas station and further contributed to the USTs leaking by failing to properly reconcile the UST measurements and concealing this information from Mr.
Subsequently, the clerk filed a lawsuit against Burt for money damages. Classify each legal action. - The District Attorney's case was a criminal case; the cashier's lawsuit was a civil case ● Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of sex, race, color, religion, and national origin. Under the law, an employee has only a certain number of days from the alleged discriminatory act to file a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. How would these laws be classified?
Also indicates that these conflicts regarding the risk rating agency as well as academics that are paid as consultants without informing you in your trials, obscuring and exacerbating the situation that led to the crisis. The documentary claims that the great risk that began with the subprime credit, was transmitted the investor to investor, due to a questionable classification practice, which falsely indicated that the investments were safe. Thus, lenders were led to sign mortgages without risks to consider, or even favor higher interest rates on loans, because at the time these were classified together, and the risk was hidden. According to the tape, the resulting products have AAA ratings, the same of government bonds issued by the U.S. government, allowing them to sell them even to the pension fund entities that can invest only maximum security. Also note for example that the Harvard economist and former director of