1. John was driving his car in a careless way, failing to drive as a reasonably prudent person would under the driving conditions. Ramona was crossing the street in a careless way, failing to cross as a reasonably prudent person would. John struck and injured Ramona with the car John was driving. At the trial, it was determined that John was 80 percent at fault and Ramona was 20 percent at fault. The injuries sustained amounted to $100,000. Explain how much, if any, recovery Ramona would receive in a state that applies the contributory negligence rule. Do the same thing for a state that applies the comparative negligence rule.
2. An art collector commissioned an artist to create a sculpture for the collector. The artist wanted a substantial amount of money for the sculpture. This caused the collector some worry regarding possible dissatisfaction with the artwork once it was completed. To ensure that payment would be made only if the collector was satisfied with the sculpture, a condition was written into the commission contract. It required that the collector would have to be satisfied with the artwork, relying on the collector's taste and judgment, before an obligation of payment would be created. The artist imagined that a collector could possibly refuse a creation of his and allowed the condition to be placed within the contract. At the completion of the sculpture, the collector claimed that she did not care for the artwork and therefore refused to pay. Can the artist force payment in this situation? Would it help if the artist could establish that the collector actually approves of the sculpture but has temporarily run short on funds, and that this is the true motivating factor in refusing to accept the sculpture?
3. Rundles,Kreiger, and Larson formed a partnership to breed and show horses. Rundles and Kreiger each contributed $25,000 to the partnership. Larson contributed four(4) horses valued at 25,000. The partnership agreement provided that the partners would share profits equally. When the horses failed to perform as expected, Rundles and Kreiger decided to reduce Larson's share of the profits. Larson claims that this decision mut be unanimous to be binding. How will the case be decided?
4. The Miller family, who operates a musical instrument manufacturing concern, has decided to incorporate. The three (3) members of the Miller family, Mary, Mark and Sue, would like to become a corporation and obtain limited liability; however, taxation at the corporate level would be very costl for them. If possible, Mary Miller would rather be taxed as a partnership. Mark Miller is worried about the additional paperwork and meetings that incorporation would surely bring. Sue Miller does not want a large board of directions to be formed. Sue fears tha the board would somehow detract from the family goals and orientation the business has always enjoyed. In light of these concerns, is there a corporate form that would better suit the Miller family?
2. An art collector commissioned an artist to create a sculpture for the collector. The artist wanted a substantial amount of money for the sculpture. This caused the collector some worry regarding possible dissatisfaction with the artwork once it was completed. To ensure that payment would be made only if the collector was satisfied with the sculpture, a condition was written into the commission contract. It required that the collector would have to be satisfied with the artwork, relying on the collector's taste and judgment, before an obligation of payment would be created. The artist imagined that a collector could possibly refuse a creation of his and allowed the condition to be placed within the contract. At the completion of the sculpture, the collector claimed that she did not care for the artwork and therefore refused to pay. Can the artist force payment in this situation? Would it help if the artist could establish that the collector actually approves of the sculpture but has temporarily run short on funds, and that this is the true motivating factor in refusing to accept the sculpture?
3. Rundles,Kreiger, and Larson formed a partnership to breed and show horses. Rundles and Kreiger each contributed $25,000 to the partnership. Larson contributed four(4) horses valued at 25,000. The partnership agreement provided that the partners would share profits equally. When the horses failed to perform as expected, Rundles and Kreiger decided to reduce Larson's share of the profits. Larson claims that this decision mut be unanimous to be binding. How will the case be decided?
4. The Miller family, who operates a musical instrument manufacturing concern, has decided to incorporate. The three (3) members of the Miller family, Mary, Mark and Sue, would like to become a corporation and obtain limited liability; however, taxation at the corporate level would be very costl for them. If possible, Mary Miller would rather be taxed as a partnership. Mark Miller is worried about the additional paperwork and meetings that incorporation would surely bring. Sue Miller does not want a large board of directions to be formed. Sue fears tha the board would somehow detract from the family goals and orientation the business has always enjoyed. In light of these concerns, is there a corporate form that would better suit the Miller family?
0 comments:
Post a Comment