You decide week 6 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. Since the tax identity of Smithon corporation would have not ceased, it is not
Bemis “released” Bannister to seek employment with one exception—Mondi Packaging. Mondi declined to offer Bannister a job solely because of the covenant not to compete. In other words, Bemis asserted its rights under the non-compete provision as it related to Mondi and was thus obligated to pay Bannister his salary. She refused to pay him the 18 moth’s theses situation was a material breach of the agreement. They should pay him the 18 months to settle the case.
The parole evidence rule requires, in the absence of fraud, duress, mutual mistake, or something of the kind the exclusion of all prior or contemporaneous oral or written evidence that would add to or vary the parties’ integrated written contract.”(Mallor, 2013, Pp448-451). Therefore, paying the taxes by the seller would be considered as if it “supplement, change, or contradict the terms of the written contract”. The contract also contained a clause requiring any modifications of the contract to be in writing, and Dyer failed to include the salesperson’s promise in writing. The court ruled the case in favor of Walt Bennett Ford. http://ar.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.19820414_0043514.AR.htm/qx Mallor, Barnes, Bowers, & Langvardt (2013).
10. Conway is not the one who had a risk of loss. Being a merchant Larsen has the risk of loss and should pay Conway back 13. The owner of the land can ask for the lumber back because he is not a merchant therefore is allowed to take back what is rightfully his. 1.
England believed that the colonist should share in the cost of the recent French-Indian war since England maintained troops in America. They imposed the Stamp Act of 1765, where the colonist were to pay extra taxes on every piece of paper they used to include newspapers, deeds, contracts, cards, etc. The colonist felt this was a violation of their rights as Englishman because, in England, taxes could not be imposed without the consent of the people or their representative in Parliament. Since the colonist did not have a representative in Parliament and they did not consent, they felt they could not be taxed, thus the expression, “no taxation without representation”. After the failure of the Stamps Act, Parliament tried taxing other British imports such as sugar, in the Sugar Act, and tea, leading to the Boston Tea Party.
According to the first element of gifts, a present intention to give the gift must be made, and it was not. Abel did not anticipate on giving the painting to the Salvation Army; thus, it does not constitute as a gift. The second area of common law in which this case influenced was the law of conversion. “Conversion occurs when any person treats another’s property as their own, denying the owner possession and rights of ownership.” (Barnes, 621). The Salvation Army exercised dominion over the painting which denied Abel any rights to
Jones don’t purchase the stock of Smithton outright. If Mr. Jones did purchase this stock outright it would cause him to acquire the assets, liabilities, and any contractual obligation that are outstanding of Smithton. According to the text Mr. Jones would be completely liable for any existing and future tax liabilities of Smithton. Because the Smithton wouldn’t cease to exist the purchase of stock wouldn’t be recommended for Mr. Jones. Since Smithton’s basis or tax schedule would not be change.
Party1 then sued Party2 refusing to sell the farm for $50,000. Law: Laws the court used are: “The mental assent of the parties is not requisite for the formation of a contract. If the words or other acts of one of the parties have but one reasonable meaning, his undisclosed intention is immaterial except when an unreasonable meaning which he attaches to his manifestations is known to the other party.” Restatement of the Law of Contracts, Vol. I, 71, p. 74. and “Specific performance, it is true, is not a matter of absolute or arbitrary right, but is addressed to the reasonable and sound discretion of the court.” First Nat. Bank v. Roanoke Oil Co., supra, 169, VA. At p. 116, 192 S.E.
It has been long seen that the States individually cannot, with any success, pretend to regulate trade. The duties and restrictions which one State imposes, the neighbouring States enable the merchants to elude; and besides, if they could he enforced, it would be highly unjust, that the duties collected in the port of one State should be applied to the sole use of that State in which they are collected, whilst the neighbouring States, who have no ports for foreign commerce, consume a part of the goods imported, and thus in effect pay a part of the duties. Even if the recommendation of Congress had been attended to, which proposed the levying for the use of Congress five per centum on goods imported, to be collected by officers to be appointed by the individual States, it is more than probable that the laws would have been feebly executed. Men are not apt to be sufficiently attentive to the business of those who do not appoint, and cannot remove or controul them; officers would naturally look up to the State which appointed them, and it is past a doubt that some of the States would esteem it no unpardonable sin to promote their own particular interest, or even that of particular men, to the injury of the United
Proprietary colonies, such as Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware, were basically land grants from the British government. Individuals were awarded huge tracts of land that they would then supervise and govern, usually in return for political or financial favors. These colonial governors reported directly to the king. Self-governing colonies, including Rhode Island and Connecticut, formed when the king granted a charter to a joint-stock company, and the company then set up its own government independent of the crown. The king could revoke the colonial charter at any time and convert a self-governing colony into a royal colony.