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 33, Problem 19CP
Summary Introduction
To discuss: Whether persons E’s are liable for the corporate debts or not.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
Naquin, Dubois, and Hoffpauir incorporated to form Air Engineered Systems and Services Inc. Dubois became president and Hoffpauir became secretary-treasurer. Naquin was employed by the company. Conflicts among the three caused a break down in the working relationship. Dubois and Hoffpauir offered Naquin $2,000 a month for 10 years for his share of the business if he would sign a noncompetition agreement. Naquin refused to sell until he could examine the corporate records. Dubois and Hoffpauir refused to allow Naquin to see the books until he signed the noncompetition agreement. Could Dubois and Hoffpauir attach such a condition to Naquin’s request? Explain.
Zenith 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.
homas Persson and Jon Nokes founded Smart Inventions, Inc., to market household consumer products. The success of their first product, the Smart Mop, continued with later products, which were sold through infomercials and other means. Persson and Nokes were the firm’s officers and equal shareholders. Persson was responsible for product development, and Nokes was in charge of day-to-day operations. In time, they became dissatisfied with each other’s efforts. Nokes represented the firm as financially “dying,” “in a grim state, . . . worse than ever,” and offered to buy all of Persson’s shares for $1.6 million. Persson accepted.On the day that they signed the agreement to transfer the shares, Smart Inventions began marketing a new product—the Tap Light. It was an instant success, generating millions of dollars in revenues. In negotiating with Persson, Nokes had intentionally kept the Tap Light a secret. Persson sued Smart Inventions, asserting fraud and other claims. Under what principle…
Chapter 33 Solutions
Smith and Roberson’s Business Law
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- In 1961, Ford Motor Company acquired Autolite, a manufacturer of spark plugs, in order to enter the profitable aftermarket for spark plugs sold as replacement parts. Ford and the other major automobile manufacturers had previously purchased original equipment spark plugs (those installed in new cars when they leave the factory) from independent producers such as Autolite and Champion, either at or below the producer’s cost. The independents were willing to sell original equipment plugs so cheaply because aftermarket mechanics often replace original equipment plugs with the same brand of spark plug. GM had already moved into the spark plug market by developing its own division. Ford decided to do so by means of a vertical merger under which it acquired Autolite. Prior to the Autolite acquisition, Ford bought 10 percent of the total spark plug output. The merger left Champion as the only major independent spark plug producer. Champion’s market share thereafter declined because Chrysler…arrow_forwardNasser and Khalil are partners in a bike business. One of their bike models malfunctioned and many customers were injured as a result. If they operate their business, Nasser & Khalil's Bicycles, an LLPS (Limited Liability Partnership), neither the business nor the O partners would be liable for the injuries. they would be personally liable for the injuries. the business would not be liable for the injuries. they would not be personally liable for the injuries.arrow_forwardTri 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_forward
- William Schmalz entered into an employment contract with Hardy Salt Company. The contract granted Schmalz six months’ severance pay for involuntary termination but none for voluntary separation or termination for cause. Schmalz was asked to resign from his employment. He was informed that if he did not resign, he would be fired for alleged misconduct. When Schmalz turned in his letter of resignation, he signed a release prohibiting him from suing his former employer as a consequence of his employment. Schmalz consulted an attorney before signing the release and upon signing it received $4,583 (one month’s salary) in consideration. Schmalz now sues his former employer for the severance pay, claiming that he signed the release under duress. Is Schmalz correct in his assertion?arrow_forwardExplain the obligations Checkers FX Chartwell Corner would have to employees in terms of the Basic Conditions of Employment Act.arrow_forwardMork and Mindy create a for-profit corporation, Mork's House, to provide shelter to homeless and abused women and children. Mork and Mindy are shareholders of the corporation. Zada is also a shareholder in the corporation, along with five others. Douglas manages the day-to-day operations of the corporation. The bylaws of the corporation provide that the corporation is established for the sole purpose of providing shelter, food, and care for homeless and abused women and children and for no other purpose. When the refrigerator in Mork's House stops working, Douglas purchases a new refrigerator from Home Depot and charges it to the corporation. If Zada challenges the purchase as being ultra vires: she will lose, because purchasing the refrigerator is an express power of the corporation. she will lose, because purchasing the refrigerator is an act reasonably necessary to accomplish the goals. she will win, because the bylaws do not address purchases of appliances. she will win, because…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_forwardSheila owned an old roadside building that she believed could be easily converted into an antique shop. She talked to her friend Barbara, an antique fancier, and they executed the following written agreement: a. Sheila would supply the building, all utilities, and $100,000 capital for purchasing antiques. b. Barbara would supply $30,000 for purchasing antiques, Sheila would repay her when the business terminated. c. Barbara would manage the shop, make all purchases, and receive a salary of $500 per week plus 5 percent of the gross receipts. d. Fifty percent of the net profits would go into the purchase of new stock. The balance of the net profits would go to Sheila. e. The business would operate under the name “Roadside Antiques.” Business went poorly, and after one year, a debt of $40,000 is owed to Old Fashioned, Inc., the principal supplier of antiques purchased by Barbara in the name of Roadside Antiques. Old Fashioned sues Roadside Antiques, and Sheila and Barbara as partners.…arrow_forwardGlenn refuses an invitation to become a partner of Dorothy and Cynthia in a retail grocery business. Nevertheless, Dorothy inserts an advertisement in the local newspaper representing Glenn as their partner. Glenn takes no steps to deny the existence of a partnership between them. Ron, who extended credit to the firm, seeks to hold Glenn liable as a partner. Is Glenn liable? Explain.arrow_forward
- 1. Dr. Webber joined the Gelder Medical Group, which was a medical partnership. Part of the agreement was that if for any reason his association with the group ended, he would not practice medicine for five years within 30 miles of the Village of Sidney, where the partnership was located. The agreement also provided that any member could be required to withdraw from the partnership upon a majority vote of the other members. Dr. Webber’s work with the group turned out to be unsatisfactory to his partners, who felt he was an embarrassment to the group. Dr. Webber refused to withdraw from the association after he was terminated by the other physicians. Two months later, despite his earlier agreement, Dr. Webber opened a medical office in Sidney. The partnership brought suit to prevent him from carrying on his practice. Could they do this successfully? 2. Brackenridge Hospital admitted Plaintiff to its intensive care unit following a serious car accident. Medical resident Dr. Villafani…arrow_forward1. Dr. Webber joined the Gelder Medical Group, which was a medical partnership. Part of the agreement was that if for any reason his association with the group ended, he would not practice medicine for five years within 30 miles of the Village of Sidney, where the partnership was located. The agreement also provided that any member could be required to withdraw from the partnership upon a majority vote of the other members. Dr. Webber’s work with the group turned out to be unsatisfactory to his partners, who felt he was an embarrassment to the group. Dr. Webber refused to withdraw from the association after he was terminated by the other physicians. Two months later, despite his earlier agreement, Dr. Webber opened a medical office in Sidney. The partnership brought suit to prevent him from carrying on his practice. Could they do this successfully?arrow_forwardDennis and Donna Smith owned a 10-acre tract of land that they decided to sell. The couple entered into a listing agreement with Kelly McLaughlin, a licensed real estate broker. The agreement gave Kelly the exclusive right to sell the property for a period of 6 months. The Smiths agreed to pay Kelly a 6% commission of the selling price if a buyer was found during the listing period. Four months later, the Smiths sent Kelly a letter terminating the listing agreement. Kelly did not approve of the conditions. One month later, Kelly presented a full price offer to the Smiths; however, they ignored the offer and sold the property to another buyer. Kelly sued the Smiths for breach of the agency agreement. Which party wins the lawsuit? Did the Smiths act ethically in this case?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