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 39, Problem 12CP
Summary Introduction
To discuss: Case of infringement between EV company and TGI should prevail or not.
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
B. Hawkeye Bank & Trust and affiliated banks agreed to refer bank customers to Financial Marketing Services, Inc. (FMS) for the purchase of life insurance. Hawkeye and FMS shared the commissions. Hawkeye employees and some independent agents licensed through FMS made the actual sales; however, all insurance business was FMS’ property. Because of concern about the confidentiality of bank customer information, Hawkeye decided to terminate its contract with FMS and sell insurance directly to its customers. The independent agents claimed Hawkeye terminating the contract with FMS constituted intentional interference with the agents’ contracts and prospective relations. Was it? Explain your position.
Walker, the CEO of Memphis Mini Golf and Go Carts (MMGGC), wanted to sell the business to Go Carts, Golf & Games. To provide a basis for the transaction, Walker retained Blanchard, an accountant, to conduct an audit of MMGGC. Blanchard was aware that Go Carts, Golf & Games would likely use the audit report in consideration of the purchase of the business from MMGGC. Blanchard's audit report showed that MMGGC’s business was profitable. William, Go Cart’s president, relied on this report in agreeing to purchase the business of MMGGC and in agreeing to the terms of the purchase. Sometime later, it was discovered that the accountant made a number of mistakes and that the business that was sold was actually insolvent. William and Go Carts sued Walker and Blanchard for damages. The suit claimed that the accountant had negligently misrepresented the facts.
Discuss the arguments for each party, determine which party should win, and provide legal support for your decision.
Moore ran a bakery in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. His business was wholly intrastate. Meads Fine Bread Co., his competitor, engaged in an interstate business. Meads cut the price of bread in half in Santa Rosa but made no price cut in any other place in New Mexico or in any other state. This price-cutting drove Moore out of business. Moore then sued Meads for damages for violating the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts. Meads claimed that the price-cutting was purely intrastate and, therefore, did not constitute a violation of federal statutes. Was Meads correct? Why or why not?
Chapter 39 Solutions
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- New West Fruit Corporation (New West) and Coastal Berry Corporation are both brokers of fresh strawberries. In the second half of 2012, New West’s predecessor, Monc’s Consolidated Produce, Inc., loaned money and strawberry plants to a group of strawberry growers known as Cooperativa La Paz (La Paz). In September 2012, Monc’s and La Paz signed a “Sales and Marketing Agreement” to allow Monc’s the exclusive right to market the strawberries grown by La Paz during the 2012–2014 season. The agreement did not mention the advances of money or plants, but did give Monc’s a security interest in all crops and proceeds on specified property in the 2013–2014 season. The financing statement was properly signed and filed. Monc’s closed down in January 2014, and its assets were assigned to New West. In April, New West learned that La Paz had agreed to market its 2014 crop through Coastal Berry. New West immediately arranged a meeting to advise the Coastal Berry officers of its contract with the…arrow_forwardCari enters a single-agency relationship with a listing broker, who owes her full disclosure and loyalty. The listing broker then finds Buyer Bonnie who wants that same broker to represent her in a transaction broker relationship, providing Bonnie with certain duties such as limited confidentiality. Can the broker represent Cari in a single-agency relationship AND represent Bonnie as a transaction broker in the same transaction? No, because offering Bonnie limited confidentiality would conflict with the full disclosure already owed to Cari. Yes, but only if the limited confidentiality owed to Bonnie is needed to fulfill Cari's objective of selling the property. Yes, as long as the broker tries to be fair to br + parties.arrow_forwardCheeseboro Conglomerate Co. entered into a contract with Fanning Heating & Cooling Corp. for the sale of its mineral holdings. The transaction is beyond Cheeseboro's powers. Which of the following parties, for the reason stated, may properly assert the lack of powers in order to challenge and try to stop or undo the sale? O Cheeseboro Conglomerate Co., but only to change the terms of the contract (not stop or undo the sale). O Fanning Heating & Cooling Corp. O A shareholder of Cheeseboro Conglomerate Co. O Fanning Heating & Cooling Corp., but only to change the terms of the contract (not stop or undo the sale). O Cheeseboro Conglomerate Co.arrow_forward
- Tri R Angus, a closely held corporation, was owned 80 percent by Jon and Frances Neiman, who were also directors of Tri R Angus. Troy Neiman and Carol Lewis owned 12 percent of Tri R Angus’s shares. Troy and Carol asked a court to remove Jon and Frances as directors of the corporation on the grounds that they authorized Tri R Angus to distribute its assets in violation of state law, inappropriately mortgaged or sold corporate assets, misused corporate earnings, and wasted corporate assets. Jon and Frances denied the allegations. At trial, Troy and Carol entered as evidence pleadings from other actions against Jon and Frances and introduced no objective evidence of current conduct by Jon or Frances. What standard of misconduct did the court require Troy and Carol to prove in order to remove Jon and Frances? Did the court find they had proved their case?arrow_forward1. Basic Research LLC advertised its products on television networks owned by Rainbow Media Holdings Inc through an ad agency Icebox Advertising Inc. As Basic’s agent Icebox had express authority to buy ads from Rainbow on Basics behalf, but the authority was limited to buying ad with cash in advance. Despite this limit Rainbow sold ads to Basic through Icebox on credit. Basic paid Icebox for the ads, but Icebox did not pass all of the payments on to Rainbow. Icebox filed for bankruptcy. Can Rainbow recoup the unpaid amounts from Basic? Explain.2. Western Fire truck Inc contracted with Emergency One Inc (EO) to be its exclusive dealer in Wyoming and Colorado through Dec. 2003. James Costello, a Western Salesperson, was authorized to order EO vehicles for hi customers. Without informing Western, Costello emailed EO about Westerns diffuclties obtaining cash to fund its operations. He asked about the viability of Westerns contract and his possible employment with EO. On EO’s…arrow_forwardA proxy is a representative of a (shareholder, officer, director) who is liable to (vote, sell shares, buy shares) on the shareholder's behalf at a shareholder meeting. Proxy agreements are generally valid for (eleven months, twelve months, thirteen months). At the time of the shareholder meeting, Francescas's proxy agreement was (fourteen months, thirteen months, twelve months) old. Therefore, Francesca's proxy agreement with her representative (expired, did not expire), and her representative (may not, may) vote on Franscesca's behalf. What if the Facts were Different Assume that Brenda purchased Mike's 100 shares of stock and Fransesca signed a new proxy agreement on May 15, 2020. Brenda's purchase of stock on May 15, 2020, is (after, before) the record date. On the record date, (Mike, Brenda) is the owner of the 100 shares and (may not, may) vote based on ownership of the 100 shares at the shareholder meeting. If Francesca signed a proxy agreement on May 15, 2020, it is (more…arrow_forward
- Rensselaer Water Company contracted with the city of Rensselaer to provide water to the city for use in homes, public buildings, industry, and fire hydrants. During the term of the contract, a building caught fire. The fire spread to a nearby warehouse and destroyed it and its contents. The water company knew of the fire but failed to supply adequate water pressure at the fire hydrant to extinguish the fire. The warehouse owner sued the water company for failure to fulfill its contract with the city. Can the warehouse owner enforce the contract? Explain.arrow_forwardZenith Steel Company operates a prosperous business. In January, Zenith’s chief executive officer (CEO) and president, Roe, who is also a member of the board, was voted a $1 million bonus by the board of directors for the valuable services he provided to the company during the previous year. Roe receives an annual salary of $850,000 from the company. Black, Inc., a minority shareholder in Zenith Steel Company, brings an appropriate action to enjoin the company from paying the $1 million bonus. Explain whether Black will succeed in its attempt.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_forward
- Kenneth Thomas brought suit against his former employer, Kidder, Peabody & Company, and two of its employees, Barclay Perry and James Johnston, in a dispute over commissions on sales of securities. When he applied to work at Kidder, Peabody & Company, Thomas had filled out a form, which contained an arbitration agreement clause. Thomas had also registered with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Rule 347 of the NYSE provides that any controversy between a registered representative and a member company shall be settled by arbitration. Kidder, Peabody & Company is a member of the NYSE. Thomas refused to arbitrate, relying on Section 229 of the California Labor Code, which provides that actions for the collection of wages may be maintained “without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate.” Perry and Johnston filed a petition in a California State court to compel arbitration under Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Should the petition of Perry and…arrow_forwardJohn worked as a sales representative for ABC Corporation for five years. During his time there, he signed a non-compete agreement, which stated that if he left the company, he would not work for a competing company within a 50-mile radius for two years. After five years, John decided to leave ABC Corporation and start his own business selling similar products. He opened his business just 20 miles away from ABC Corporation's headquarters. ABC Corporation filed a lawsuit against John, claiming that he violated the non-compete agreement and was taking away their customers. Questions: Is the non-compete agreement enforceable in this case? Is the 50-mile radius reasonable? Is John's new business considered a competitor to ABC Corporation?arrow_forwardJohnson, 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_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