Concept explainers
Case summary: Company VVE constructed PLGC and estates in country T in two phases, 1 and 2. Another company VVP had cut the roadways and constructed water, sewer, and stormwater lines with the help of water inlets for development purposes. Person F, the president and owner of VVP and a sole general partner of company VVP, failed to get the proper permits for the development work in a timely manner. Person F also failed to comply with the requirement of the permits, once the permit was obtained. Person MD who was the attorney general of the state filed a case against company VVE and person F for presumably violating the law of water pollution control in the state. The court entered the judgment in favor of F.
To find: The apportionment of penalties amongst the three defendants.
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionChapter 17 Solutions
The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (MindTap Course List)
- Reaction to discussion below: Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. was a tenant in a building where alarm systems were maintained by the ADT company. When the systems were defective and allowed water into the building, it damaged Melodee’s property; Then Melodee decided to sue ADT and their defense was that the service contract limited the liability to 10% of the annual service charge given to the customers. The limitation can be valid since the ADT company did not provide much liability protection. The ADT company can offer another protection plan to Melodee, which would cover her property but at a higher price rate. This case limitation of liability clauses will be enacted since ADT company was not fully liable for Melodee's property, which only would cover the limited 10%. A limitation of liability clauses contract states that one of the parties is not fully liable for damages in case of a breach. The ADT company is at fault for the malfunctions in their systems they should offer a higher…arrow_forward19-2. Duty of Loyalty. Peter hites Alice as an agent to sell a picce of property he owns. The price is to be at least $30,000. Alice discovers that the fair market value of Peter's property is actually at least $45.000 and could he higher because a shopping mall is going to be built nearby. Alice forms a real estate partnership with her cousin Carl. Then she prepares for Peter's signature a contract for the sale of the property ro Carl for $32,000. Peter signs the contract. Just before clos- ing and passage of title, Perer learns about the shopping mall and the increased fair aarket value of his property. Peter refuses to deed the property to Carl. Carl claims that Alice, as Peter's agent, solicited a price above that agreed on when agency was crcated and that the contract is therefore bind- ing and enforceable. Discuss fully whether Peter is bound to this contract. (See: Duties, Righs, and Remedies of Agents and Principals.) thearrow_forward
- BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage LearningEssentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage LearningAccounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
- International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education