The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases
9th Edition
ISBN: 9781305764460
Author: Frank B Cross/ Roger LeRoy Miller
Publisher: CENGAGE C
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 3, Problem 4CT
Summary Introduction
Case summary:In a limited
To explain:The ethical duty of RW to comply with the defendant’s discovery request.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionStudents have asked these similar questions
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…
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.
Merrill Lynch employed Post and Maney as account executives. Both men elected to be paid a salary and to participate in the firm’s pension and profit-sharing plans rather than take a straight commission. Thirteen years later, Merrill Lynch terminated the employment of both Post and Maney. Both men began working for a competitor of Merrill Lynch. Merrill Lynch then informed them that all of their rights in the companyfunded pension plan had been forfeited pursuant to a provision of the plan that permitted forfeiture in the event an employee directly or indirectly competed with the firm. Is Merrill Lynch correct in its assertion? Why or why not?
Chapter 3 Solutions
The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases
Knowledge Booster
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.arrow_forwardSnitch, an officer of Undergrowth Corporation, tells Gumst about fraudulent dealings going on within Undergrowth, and urges Gumst to investigate the matter. Gumst begins to investigate and he discovers wrongdoing. During the investigation, he mentions to his friend Jittery some of the facts he is uncovering in his investigation. Jittery, who owns some stock in Undergrowth, sells it immediately and thus avoids the huge downswing in share price that ensues when the results of Gumst's investigation are announced. Has Gumst engaged in insider trading? No, because only the person who actually buys or sells the stock can commit insider trading. O No, because neither Snitch nor Gumst had any motive of personal gain. O No, because he was not an officer, director, or major shareholder of Undergrowth. Yes.arrow_forwardJames incorporated a business, J Wine & Bar. He hired his friend, Douglas, to act as bouncer during nighttime service. Ricky, who is an IT professional, went to a bar to unwind from the stress and pressure of work. With pity misunderstanding with the bar’s crew, he was told to leave by the bouncer. Without provocation with the bouncer, he suffered a beating and fractured nose. The supervisor supported the action of the bouncer and said that he has the right to use force which he deemed necessary to persuade Ricky to leave the premises. Please comment on the issues of trespass, assault, battery, and and vicarious liability, if there is any.arrow_forward
- Nasser 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_forwardJose Pena and Joseph Antenucci were medical doctors who were partners in a medical practice. Both doctors treated Elaine Zuckerman during her pregnancy. Her son, Daniel Zuckerman, was born with severe physical problems. Elaine, as Daniel’s mother and natural guardian, brought a medical malpractice suit against both doctors. The jury found that Pena was guilty of medical malpractice but that Antenucci was not. The amount of the verdict totaled $4 million. The trial court entered judgment against Pena but not against Antenucci. Plaintiff Zuckerman made a post-trial motion for judgment against both defendants. Is Antenucci jointly and severally liable for the medical malpractice of his partner, Pena? Explain your answer.arrow_forwardIn January 2016 Ben Sisko bought a “Quark's Burgers” franchise in Montana. Quark's Burgers has over 100 franchisees, and its franchise agreement states that all franchisees must offer menu items as directed by Quark's Burgers, and that the failure to do so could result in the immediate termination of the franchise. Ben bought the franchise because he was a vegetarian, and its menu was free of meat products. In addition, Ben's religion forbids the eating of any meat products. Ben's franchise was very successful, and every year he received an award from Quark's Burgers for being one of the top 10% of its franchisees. In April 2019 Quark's Burgers changed its menu; among the changes included breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham, or sausage. Ben refused to sell these items at his store on the ground that his religion forbids the eating of pork products. In January 2020 Ben opened a second franchise, at which he also refused to sell products with meat products. Ben's franchises…arrow_forward
- Quincy forms a manufacturing corporation, the Fabri-Q Co. (Fabri-Q). He is the sole shareholder. He does not keep records of any dividends and very little records of the corporation's accounts. Ten months after the formation and incorporation of Fabri-Q, one of Fabri-Q's products injures a user and Fabri-Q is sued. Which of the following ordinarily is a reason for a court to hold Quincy personally liable? O If Quincy is not held liable, creditors would not be fully compensated. O Fabri-Q's headquarters was at the same address as another business that Quincy. O The corporation did not elect any directors. O Quincy decides to use some of the profits from Fabri-Q - paid to him as a dividend to pay his personal debts. O Quincy served as the CEO and CTO (Chief Technology Officer) of Fabri-Q.arrow_forwardGrinnell Corporation manufactured plumbing supplies and fire sprinkler systems. It also owned 76 percent of the stock of ADT Co., 89 percent of the stock of AFA Inc., and 100 percent of the stock of Holmes Inc. ADT provided burglary-protection and fire-protection services. AFA provided only fire-protection services. Holmes provided only burglary-protection services. Each of the three firms offered a central station service under which hazard-detecting devices installed on the protected premises automatically transmitted an electronic signal to a central station. Other companies provided forms of protection service other than the central station variety. Subscribers to an accredited central station service (i.e., one approved by insurance underwriters) received substantially greater insurance premium reductions than the premium reductions received by users of other protection services. At the relevant time in question, ADT, AFA, and Holmes were the three largest central station service…arrow_forwardSubject: acountingarrow_forward
- Sally and Tom decide to go into business, selling discounted merchandise through their website “e-Buy.” They sign a partnership agreement that requires Sally to contribute $12,000 and Tom to contribute $8,000 in capital to start the firm. The agreement also states that only Sally will have the authority to bind the partnership in deals with third parties, but the agreement says nothing about the management of the firm or a division of profits. Without Sally’s knowledge, Tom tells United Computer Products, Inc., that he represents the firm and signs a contract with United to buy hard drives for resale on e-Buy. In the first year, e-Buy makes a profit of $50,000. What are the partners’ rights with respect to the management of the firm? Is the partnership bound to the contract with United? Do the partners split the first year’s profits? If so, how much is each entitled to?arrow_forwardKenneth 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_forwardMarvie, Kim, Clarence, and Goldie Tschetter purchased units in Huron Kitchen LLC, a limited liability company, which would construct and own a Country Kitchen restaurant in South Dakota. As members of an LLC, they had management powers in proportion to their contributions of capital and could elect the managers of the LLC and set the managers’ responsibilities. As LLC members, the Tschetters agreed to hire Country Hospitality Corporation to do much of the operation of the LLC. The LLC Operating Agreement required that the day-to-day decisions were made by two managers, who were required to be members of the LLC and were selected by the other members. Members could authorize loans on behalf of the company by agreement. The members had the right to receive profits and distributions when warranted. The members could authorize incidental expenses within an aggregate of $12,500. The members were empowered to make any other routine actions incidental to the day-to-day activity of the LLC.…arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
- 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
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student Edition
Business
ISBN:9781337407137
Author:Kelly
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...
Business
ISBN:9781337386494
Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)
Business
ISBN:9780134474021
Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. Steinbart
Publisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...
Business
ISBN:9781259929441
Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. Hult
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education