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 18, Problem 12CP
Summary Introduction
Case summary:
Person B is the owner of large apartment complex, negotiated with person C the owner of a laundry company, to allow person C to own and function the laundry services within the complex. Person B terminated 5 years contract with person C and he placed the machinery into use in different locations and earned less income than in the complex.
To discuss: Whether the business owner will be able to sue the building owner for the full amount of damages or not.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Matthew and Joe were roommates. When they were renting their apartment, each agreed to pay half of the cost of the rent and the cable and electric bills. Two months after moving in, Matthew borrowed Joe's car and was involved in an accident. Matthew promised to pay $2,200 in damages if Joe promised not to file a claim with his insurance company. Joe agreed. However, Matthew never paid him for the damages. He claimed that the agreement was not enforceable because there was no consideration. What is the outcome?
Rubric
David E. Ross, his two brothers, and their families operated and owned the entire stock of five businesses. Ross had three children: Rod, David II, and Betsy. David II and Betsy were not involved in the operation of the companies, but Rod began working for one of the firms, Equitable Life and Casualty Insurance Company, in 2007. Between 2009 and 2013, the elder Ross informed a number of persons of his desire to reward Rod for his work with Equitable Life by giving him stock in addition to the stock he would inherit. He subsequently executed several stock transfers to Rod, representing shares in various family businesses, which were reflected by appropriate entries on the corporate books. Certificates were issued in Rod’s name and placed in an envelope identified with the name Rod Ross, but they were kept with the other family stock certificates in an office safe to which Rod did not have access. In all, one-fourth of the stock holdings of David E. Ross were transferred to Rod in this…
Ming entered into a contract with Lee to supply Lee with smuggled cigarettes. Lee received
the smuggled cigarettes and tried to sell them off at a profit. However, due to the COVID-19
pandemic, Lee could not find any buyer for the smuggled cigarettes. Without any profit, Lee
was unable to pay Ming the outstanding sum under their contract.
Required:
Analyse whether Ming is entitled to seek assistance from the court to claim back the
outstanding sum under the contract from Lee. Support your discussion with relevant legal
principles and cases, if any.
Chapter 18 Solutions
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Johnson, who owned a hardware store, was indebted to Hutchinson, one of her suppliers. Johnson sold her business to Lockhart, one of Johnson’s previous competitors, who combined the inventory from Johnson’s store with his own and moved them to a new, larger store. Hutchinson claims that Lockhart must pay Johnson’s debt because the sale of the business had been made without complying with the requirements of the bulk sales law. Discuss whether Lockhart is obligated to pay Hutchison’s debt to Johnson.arrow_forwardPeter Andrus owned an apartment building that he had insured under a fire insurance policy sold by J.C. Durick Insurance (Durick). Two months prior to the expiration of the policy, Durick notified Andrus that the building should be insured for $48,000 (or 80 percent of the building’s value), as required by the insurance company. Andrus replied that (1) he wanted insurance to match the amount of the outstanding mortgage on the building (i.e., $24,000) and (2) if Durick could not sell this insurance, he would go elsewhere. Durick sent a new insurance policy in the face amount of $48,000 with the notation that the policy was automatically accepted unless Andrus notified him to the contrary. Andrus did not reply. However, he did not pay the premiums on the policy. Durick sued Andrus to recover these premiums. Discuss who wins? Provide justification for your argument/position.arrow_forwardColumbia University brought suit against Jacobsen on two notes signed by him and his parents. The notes represented the balance of tuition he owed the University. Jacobsen counterclaimed for money damages due to Columbia’s deceit or fraudulent misrepresentation. Jacobsen argues that Columbia fraudulently misrepresented that it would teach wisdom, truth, character, enlightenment, and similar virtues and qualities. He specifically cites as support the Columbia motto: “in lumine tuo videbimus lumen” (“In your light we shall see light”); the inscription over the college chapel: “Wisdom dwelleth in the heart of him that hath understanding”; and various excerpts from its brochures, catalogues, and a convocation address made by the University’s president. Jacobsen, a senior who was not graduated because of poor scholastic standing, claims that the University’s failure to meet its promises made through these quotations constituted fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit. Decision?arrow_forward
- Parker, the owner of certain unimproved real estate in Chicago, employed Adams, a real estate agent, to sell the property for a price of $250,000 or more and agreed to pay Adams a commission of 6 percent for making a sale. Adams negotiated with Turner, who was interested in the property and willing to pay as much as $280,000 for it. Adams made an agreement with Turner that if Adams could obtain Parker’s signature to a contract to sell the property to Turner for $250,000, Turner would pay Adams a bonus of $10,000. Adams prepared and Parker and Turner signed a contract for the sale of the property to Turner for $250,000. Turner refuses to pay Adams the $10,000 as promised. Parker refuses to pay Adams the 6 percent commission. In an action by Adams against Parker and Turner, what judgment?arrow_forwardOn August 20, Hildebrand entered into a written contract with the city of Douglasville whereby he was to serve as community development project engineer for three years at an “annual fee” of $19,000. This salary figure could be changed without affecting the other terms of the contract. One of the provisions for termination of the contract was written notice by either party to the other at any time at least ninety days prior to the intended date of termination. The contract listed a substantial number of services and duties Hildebrand was to perform for the city; among the lesser duties were (a) keeping the community development director (Hildebrand’s supervisor) informed at all times of his whereabouts and how he could be contacted and (b) attending meetings at which his presence was requested. Two years later, on September 20, by which time Hildebrand’s fee had risen to $1,915.83 per month, the city fired Hildebrand effective immediately, citing “certain material breaches…of…arrow_forwardSonenberg Company managed Westchester Manor Apartments through its on-site property manager, Judith. Manor Associates Limited Partnership, whose general partner is Westchester Manor, Ltd., owned the complex. The entry sign to the property did not reveal the owner’s name but did disclose that Sonenberg managed the property. Judith contacted Redi-Floors and requested a proposal for installing carpet in several of the units. In preparing the proposal, Redi-Floors confirmed that Sonenberg was the managing company and that Judith was its on-site property manager. Sonenberg did not inform Redi-Floors of the owner’s identity. Judith and her assistant orally ordered the carpet, and Redi-Floors installed the carpet. Redi-Floors sent invoices to the complex and received checks from “Westchester Manor Apartments.” Believing that Sonenberg owned the complex, Redi-Floors did not learn of the true owner’s identity until after the work had been completed when a dispute arose concerning the payment of…arrow_forward
- Peter has been in practise as a doctor in Sydney since 1982. In 1984, he purchased a 25-hectares farm near Batlow, which is considered the premium apple growing region in Australia. The purchase price for the farm was $700,000. Peter borrowed the funds to purchase the farm. At the time of purchase the farm was used to grow apples and Peter continued to grow apples on the farm, employing a full-time manager for this purpose.As a result of the Black Summer bushfires in 2019/2020 however, most of the apple trees and packing sheds on Peter’s farm were destroyed. Peter decided not to replant apple trees. Instead, he decided to grow hazelnuts and cherries because he believed these would provide a higher yield than apples given current market prices.In late 2021, Peter arranged with his farm manager to oversee the removal of all remaining and burned-out apple trees on the farm and to prepare the soil to make it suitable for planting 200 cherry trees and 100 hazelnut trees. It was estimated…arrow_forwardExecutive Financial Services, Inc. (EFS), purchased three tractors from Tri-County Farm Company (Tri-County), a John Deere dealership owned by Gene Mohr and James Loyd. The tractors cost $48,000, $19,000, and $38,000. EFS did not take possession of the tractors but instead left the tractors on Tri-County’s lot. EFS leased the tractors to Mohr-Loyd Leasing (Mohr-Loyd), a partnership between Mohr and Loyd, with the understanding and representation by Mohr-Loyd that the tractors would be leased out to farmers. Instead of leasing the tractors, Tri-County sold them to three different farmers. EFS sued and obtained judgment against Tri-County, Mohr-Loyd, and Mohr and Loyd personally for breach of contract. Because that judgment remained unsatisfied, EFS sued the three farmers who bought the tractors to recover the tractors from them. a) What does the entrustment rule provide? Explain. b) Did Mohr and Loyd act ethically in this case? c) Who owns the tractors, EFS or the farmers?arrow_forwardWilson engages Ruth to sell Wilson’s antique walnut chest to Harold for $2,500. The next day, Ruth learns that Sandy is willing to pay $3,000 for Wilson’s chest. Ruth nevertheless sells the chest to Harold. Wilson then discovers these facts. What are Wilson’s rights, if any, against Ruth?arrow_forward
- The Madariagas owned a restaurant where they served " Albert's Famous Mexican Hot Sauce . " They entered into a contract to sell the restaurant and the formula for the secret sauce to Morris . Although Morris paid the agreed - upon price , the sellers refused to give him the recipe unless he also paid them lifetime royalties for the salsa . Which of these remedies should Morris seek : expectation , restitution , specific performance , or reformation ? Why ?arrow_forwardIn August, Victoria Air Conditioning, Inc. (VAC), entered into a subcontract for insulation services with Southwest Texas Mechanical Insulation Company (SWT), a partnership comprising Charlie Jupe and Tommy Nabors. In February of the following year, Jupe and Nabors dissolved the partnership, but VAC did not receive notice of the dissolution at that time. Sometime later, insulation was removed from Nabors’s premises to Jupe’s possession and Jupe continued the insulation project with VAC. From then on, Nabors had no more involvement with SWT. One month later, Nabors informed VAC’s project manager, Von Behrenfeld, that Nabors was no longer associated with SWT, had formed his own insulation company, and was interested in bidding on new jobs. Subsequently, SWT failed to perform the subcontract and Jupe could not be found. VAC brought suit for breach of contract against SWT, Jupe, and Nabors. Nabors claims that several letters and change orders introduced by both parties show that VAC knew…arrow_forwardAdrian rents a bicycle from Barbara. The bicycle rental contract Adrian signed provides that Barbara is not liable for any injury to the renter caused by any defect in the bicycle or the negligence of Barbara. Injured when she is involved in an accident due to Barbara’s improper maintenance of the bicycle, Adrian sues Barbara for her damages. Will Barbara be protected from liability by the provision in their contract? Explain.arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
Understanding BusinessManagementISBN:9781259929434Author:William NickelsPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
Management (14th Edition)ManagementISBN:9780134527604Author:Stephen P. Robbins, Mary A. CoulterPublisher:PEARSON
Spreadsheet 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:PEARSON
Business Essentials (12th Edition) (What's New in...ManagementISBN:9780134728391Author:Ronald J. Ebert, Ricky W. GriffinPublisher:PEARSON
Fundamentals 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