Business Law Case Study: South City Electronics

The plaintiff (Southern Prestige Industries, Inc.) initiated an action against the defendant (Independence Plating Corp.) in a North Carolina state court for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that defects in the defendant’s anodizing process caused the plaintiff’s machine parts to be rejected by Kidde Aerospace. The defendant being a New Jersey corporation and having its only office and all of its personnel situated in the state filed a motion to dismiss citing lack of personal jurisdiction. The trial court denied the motion and the defendant appealed arguing that there were insufficient contacts to satisfy the due process of law requirements

In 1816, the 2nd National Bank of the United States was chartered by Congress, establishing a branch in Maryland. In trying to protect local business and claiming the unconstitutional chartering of the National Bank, (?????as a direct response????), the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose a tax on all banks not chartered within the state (the Bank of the United States was the only bank that qualified). However, McCulloch, the cashier of BUS’ Baltimore branch, refused to pay this tax and was sued by the state. McCulloch lost in county court and the decision was reaffirmed by the appellate court.

Elizabeth Blackwell showed herself as a dedicated and diligent doctor during five years of work in Neurological Associates, and made a significant contribution to the profit margin of the partnership. The partners were delighted with hiring Blackwell in 2005 and they introduced her to medical physicians at a conference. But the referral base Blackwell went through was not the result of that investment by the partnership but instead it was the evidence of her professionalism in neurological sphere.

Certain business situations necessitate that customers take title to the goods purchased, agree to pay for them and yet not be in a position to accept delivery of the goods. In such cases, the sellers fulfill the manufacturing requirements and segregate the goods in their warehouses so as to make the goods available to the customers for shipment. Such transactions are labeled ‘bill and hold’ agreements (Grant Thornton, 2010).

Also Robinson is not a person of integrity. In his audit he violated SAS No.1 as well as AU sec110, AU Sec. 220 and AU Sec 230. AU 110 states that the objective of the audit of financial statements by the independent auditor is the expression of an opinion on the fairness with which they present, in all material respects, financial position, results of operations, and its cash flows in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Roberson did accept “precise point estimates” that results in material misstatements of company financial reporting. Moreover, the AU section 220 states that the auditor must maintain independence in all matters relating to the audit. Robinson and Crabtree were close friends. In addition Robinson violated Due Professional Care, AU section 230. He forgot that the professional skepticism exist by allowing “precise point estimates” of accruals which provides a base for manipulation of financial statements. Moreover, the ET Section 102-2 states that a conflict of interest may occur if a member performs a professional service for a client or employer and the member has a relationship with another person, entity, or service that could impair the member’s objectivity. Thus, David’s integrity and independence can be questioned because he is trying to please Hansen to make partner.

BIS did not breach duty of care because according to "N.Y. GOB. LAW 18-105: NY Code -Section 18-105: Duties of skiers"  10-11, each skier shall have the duty not to willfully stop on any slope or trail where such stopping is likely to cause a collision with other skiers or vehicles and to yield to other skiers when entering a trail or starting downhill. Craig neglected his duty to both.

“Bill and hold” sales-If customers would order goods before they needed them, Sunbeam offered to hold the goods in Sunbeam’s warehouse until they requested later. They could return the unsold goods for full credit. The bill-and-hold strategy is not illegal and also follows the generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) of financial reporting.

Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd [1949] 1 All ER 127 (UK Court of Appeal), Reg Glass Pty Ltd v Rivers Locking Systems Pty Ltd (1968) 120 CLR 516 (High Court)

* unity of purpose and focus under a common corporate strategy (further supporting the firm’s strategy as it relates to acquisitions and divestitures);

This Case Scenario delivers both legal and ethical issues. With that being stated the court must determine to see if Roy would be liable for being sued of breach of contract. Aside from the legal aspect, it needs to be determined that the fairness and justice is taken into consideration. Where Roy should portray the utmost fairness to one of his finest customer and what is fair should be fair. Will the legal entity make sure the good and bad consequences are distributed fairly?

It is necessary to determine when L was removed as director of SPG and SET to ascertain the validity of the plaintiffs’ appointment as administrators. To establish L’s time of removal, one must first conclude whether the decision at the meeting took effect immediately, or if the subsequent messages exchanged between M and L, and belated lodging with ASIC, suggest a later removal date.

Question 1 – Partnership 1.1 Issues Have Nick and LIM formed a partnership? Rules Partnership Act (SA) 1891 Section 1 stated a partnership is the relation which subsists between person carrying on a business in a common with a view of profit. Application If all the below criteria are met, a partnership has likely been formed.

Contracts, business, and laws are three simple little words, but when put together they have a substantial impact on our everyday lives. Below we will discuss three case studies. The first case is between Chris, Matt, and Ian vs. Donald Margolin, who was injured when he used an aftershave lotion that he bought off the internet called Funny Face. The second case is between Sam, his landlord, and a national chain store. Sam is being accused of conducting business from his apartment and going back on a verbal promise. In the last case is two lifelong friends who decided to join in a partnership and open up a sporting goods shop. Therefore, before the appropriate court can proceed with the first case, the court should take into several considerations around the rules of jurisdiction, alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and whether or not corporation/or corporate offices can be held for the criminal or potential act. In the second case before the court can rule the court should determine the various elements of a valid contract, if a quasi-contract exists, a promissory estoppel, and the rights an obligation of a tenant would prevail on Sam 's claims. Finally, in the third case between Jeb and Josh, they should determine the type of business entity that will overall protect their business and personal needs.

Sarah, Jane and their employees of a company are separate legal entity to the Sarah Jane Pty Ltd therefore, it allows Sarah, Jane and employees to have contracts with their own company.

6/2/16 – a meeting was held with Shane, in the presence of his Union Representative, Tom Brice, to discuss the allegation that he violated DOT&PF’s Unauthorized Expenditures/Purchases P&P #10.01.022, when he purchased meals while traveling for work on May 16 - 17, 2016.