Whether person M will be fruitful in a law suit in contrast to person P and why.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 6Q

Summary Introduction

To discuss: Whether person M will be fruitful in a law suit in contrast to person P and why.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Sheila 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.…

In 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…

Peter 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.