Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Because nonprofit corporations have a more restricted range of powers than business
corporations, actions not authorized by the charters of nonprofit corporations are more
likely to be found ultra vires.
Ordinarily, every party to a contract is presumed to have contractual capacity until the
contrary is shown.
The covenant of quiet enjoyment protects the tenant from interference with possession
by the landlord or the landlord's agent, and it also imposes liability on the landlord for
the unlawful acts of third persons.
An agency hearing is generally not subject to the rules of evidence.
Corporate securities evidenced by a certificate are negotiable.
Boycotts are always illegal, even when done with good intentions.
A contract for the sale of goods is not enforceable unless the contract clearly expresses
the price.
Federal law requires all companies who market search engines on the Internet to create
and abide by a search engine code of ethics.
Generally, a promise is legally enforceable even if nothing is given or received for the
promise.
Malpractice is both a form of negligence and a tort.
For the purposes of fire insurance, all fires that cause damage are considered hostile
fires.
Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract
provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15-minute monologue for his
upcoming appearance on Comedy Hour and that Wessel would pay Gregory $250. All
performers on Comedy Hour make $500 per appearance. As Gregory knows, the last
time Wessel appeared on Comedy Hour he was asked to make special guest
appearances at three local comedy clubs using the same monologue. He earned a total
of $750 for the three performances. Shortly before Wessel was scheduled to appear on
Comedy Hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue. As
a result, Wessel was forced to cancel his appearance. Wessel sued Gregory for breach of
contract and requested damages of $1,250. What will result?
Marble Industries hired virtually all of its employees from Union High School, which
was overwhelmingly white in its racial makeup. Accordingly, there were virtually no
nonwhite employees employed by Marble Industries. The work these employees
performed was work that any reasonably capable high school graduate could do. When
organizations representing nonwhites questioned the policy, the personnel director
indicated that Union High School graduates were hired because they had worked
successfully for the company and because the president of the company had graduated
from that school. There was no evidence that there was any plan or intention to
discriminate against nonwhites. Discuss the possibility that this policy may violate Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act.
The "known user" rule imposes liability on the accountant for negligent malpractice
when he or she can foresee the parties who will rely on his work in the financial
statements.
Corporate officers may avail themselves of all business opportunities that come to them
in an individual capacity regardless of whether or not the opportunity lies within their
field of duty.
Bart and his brother-in-law, Ted, owned a small corporation. Ted was basically an
investor, and Bart ran the entire business. As Ted became increasingly remote from
day-to-day operations, Bart began to falsify some records so that Bart could take a
greater share of the profits. This continued for years with Bart mailing falsified
financial statements to Ted. When Bart suddenly became ill, Ted was forced to assume a
greater role in the business on a temporary basis. During this time, Ted discovered the
past deceptions and sued Bart under Rule l0b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Bart defended on the procedural ground that the business was local and had never been
involved in interstate transactions of any kind. Moreover, the corporation was not listed
on any stock exchange, nor did it have assets in excess of $10 million or 500 or more
shareholders. Comment on the outcome of this case.
Both companies and their employees are subject to criminal penalties for violations of
federal environmental laws.
