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.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 17, Problem 2CT

Summary Introduction

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.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Case: Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corporation and Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center Facts: Brenda Brandt was admitted to Bush Lincoln Health Center for treatment of urinary incontinence. She had a surgical procedure in which a sling was implanted. The manufacturer, Boston Scientific, recalled the item. Brenda had to have the sling surgically removed. She sued the manufacturer and the designer. In this case, Brandt’s bill from the Health Center reflects that of the $11,174.50 total charge for her surgery. $1,659.50, or 14.9%, was for the sling and its surgical kit. What provision of the UCC did the plaintiff sue under? What was the reasoning and decision of the court hearing the case

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…

What is the principle of vicarious liability (respondeat superior)?