Case summary: The Plaintiff NIL filed a suit against the defendant HSI in the Texas state court. The return of service showed that the process has been served on the commissioner of Texas state as soon as it was delivered to JK, a defendant in person. As the defendant didn’t respond to the service of process, the decision was given in favor of the plaintiff. After 5 months, the defendant filed a motion for a new trial claiming that they were not served with the process in severe compliance with the service of process.
To Explain: (a) The applicability of assertion made by the defendant that JK didn’t have the authority to accept the process on their behalf.
To Find: (b) The person responsible for ensuring that the service of process is accomplished properly.
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solutionChapter 3 Solutions
The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (MindTap Course List)
- Vuitton, a French corporation, manufactures high-quality handbags, luggage, and accessories. Crown Handbags,. a New York corporation, manufactures and distributes ladies’ handbags. Vuitton handbags are sold exclusively in expensive department stores, and distribution is strictly controlled to maintain a certain retail selling price. The Vuitton bags bear a registered trademark and a distinctive design. Crown’s handbags appear identical to the Vuitton bags but are of inferior quality. May Vuitton recover from Crown for manufacturing counterfeit handbags and selling them at a discount? Explain.arrow_forwardThe Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC) was created as a wholly government-owned corporation to insure wheat producers against unavoidable crop failure. As required by law, the FCIC published in the Federal Register conditions for crop insurance. Specifically, the FCIC published that spring wheat reseeded on winter wheat acreage was ineligible for coverage. When farmer Merrill applied for insurance on his wheat crop, he informed the local FCIC agent that 400 of his 460 acres of spring wheat were reseeded on the winter wheat acreage. The agent advised Merrill that his entire crop was insurable. When drought destroyed Merrill’s wheat, Merrill tried to collect the insurance, but the FCIC refused to pay, asserting that Merrill is bound by the notice provided by publication of the regulation in the Federal Register. Is the FCIC correct? Explain.arrow_forwardDenver Corporation of Colorado provides welding services for large projects, customized furniture. It does not advertise or otherwise solicit business in Oregon. Medford Industries, Inc., an Oregon high-end furniture store, contracted with Denver to ship metal furniture from Oregon to Colorado. After thirty-two transactions, Medford filed a suit in an Oregon state court against Denver, alleging breach of contract. Can the Oregon court exercise jurisdiction? a. No, because Denver Corporation did not advertise or solicit business in Oregon and therefore did not deliver their services into the stream of commerce there. b. Yes, because the furniture came from Denver. c. Yes, because 32 transactions satisfy the minimum-contacts test for determining whether a state can exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state business. d. No, because Medford Industries contacted Denver Corporation. Denver did not contact Medford and therefore Denver did not…arrow_forward
- When a corporation wishes to issue certain securities, it must provide sufficient information for an unsophisticated investor to evaluate the financial risk involved. Specifically, the law imposes liability for making a false statement or omission that is "material." What sort of information would an investor consider "material" pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934? Be sure to explain the Act and provide two recent case examples where material representation or omission amounted to securities fraud in violation of SEC Rule 10b-5.arrow_forwardThe Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Ernst & Young LLP (EY) forcheating by its audit professionals on exams required to obtain and maintain CertifiedPublic Accountant (CPA) licenses, and for withholding evidence of this misconductfrom the SEC’s Enforcement Division during the Division’s investigation of the matter.EY admits the facts underlying the SEC’s charges and agrees to pay a $100 millionpenalty and undertake extensive remedial measures to fix the firm’s ethical issues.“This action involves breaches of trust by gatekeepers within the gatekeeper entrustedto audit many of our Nation’s public companies. It’s simply outrageous that the veryprofessionals responsible for catching cheating by clients cheated on ethics exams ofall things,” said Gurbir S. Grewal, Director of the SEC’s Enforcement Division. “Andit’s equally shocking that Ernst & Young hindered our investigation of this misconduct. This action should serve as a clear message that the SEC will not…arrow_forwardDescribe the role and workings of (1) the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and (2) the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).arrow_forward
- Upon becoming employed by a state-licensed mortgage company, an individual who works for a depository institution as a mortgage loan originator (MLO) shall not be deamed to have tamporary suthority to act as an MLO in an application state if which of the following events has occurred? A) The individual has been a witness in a trial where the defendant was convicted of felony fraud. B) The individual has been subject to a court order for payment of child support. C) The individual had an application for an MLO license denied or an MLO license revoked or suspended in any governmental jurisdiction. D) The individual has submitted an application to be a state-licensed MLO in the application state and was registered in the NMLS as an MLO by the prior omploverarrow_forward2. The company's objects stated that it was to carry on a business as gown makers but the business had evolved into making veneered panels. No change had been made to the objects clause to reflect this change. A coal merchant had supplied coal to the company which was ordered on company notepaper headed with reference to the company being a veneered panel maker. The company subsequently refused to pay the coal merchant. – Can the company do so? Give reasons for your answer.arrow_forward4. Under Article 4 of the Uniform Commercial code, a stale check is a check that was drawn more than 4 months before being presented. True False 5. A consumer who make a contract with a door to door salesman who comes to the consumer's home, has 5 days to cancel the contract in accordance with a Federal Trade commission regulation. True False 6. Sarah works as an employee for her employer , ABC Corporation, which is a private company. Sarah's employer can compel her to accept her salary payment by electronic transfer. True False 7. Under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, any person who obtains information from a credit agency under false pretenses is subject to criminal and civil penalties True Falsearrow_forward
- Suture Express was a new upstart specializing in the medical supply network by selling only sutures. Owens & Minor was a medical supply distributor that carried all types of medical supplies, including sutures. Owens & Minor began bundling provisions that required its customers to pay a premium for all medical products unless the customer agreed to purchase its sutures. Suture Express brought suit alleging a loss to Owens & Minor through anticompetitive practices. Is this a tying situation that violates federal antitrust laws? Why or why not?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_forwardKoh, a California resident, won a judgment in California of $240,000 against Inno-Pacific Holdings, Ltd., a Singapore company, but Inno-Pacific did not pay the judgment. Koh discovered that the company had an interest in land in Washington State, so he filed suit in Washington to seize the property to satisfy his judgment. The trial court in Washington dismissed the suit, because it lacked personal jurisdiction over Inno-Pacific. Koh appealed. On what basis could the Washington court have jurisdiction?arrow_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