Stuart Waterstone Forum Index Stuart Waterstone

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FOR FUTURE REFERENCE ONLY

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Stuart Waterstone Forum Index -> Notes
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Waterstone
Site Admin


Joined: 31 Jan 2005
Posts: 171

PostPosted: Sun Mar 27, 2016 8:42 am    Post subject: FOR FUTURE REFERENCE ONLY Reply with quote

Georgie Bushie was a political candidate running for congressional office. One of his campaign workers ordered the Barbie Boxer Co. to print some promotional materials for Bushie's campaign. When the printed materials were received, Bushie did not return them but instead used them during his campaign. When Boxer failed to obtain payment from Bushie for the materials, she sued for recovery of the price. Bushie contended that he was not liable on the sales contract because he had not authorized his agent to purchase the printing services. Boxer argued that the campaign worker was Bushie's agent and that the worker had authority to make the printing contract. Additionally, Boxer claimed that even if the purchase was unauthorized, Bushie's use would require Bushie to pay Boxer. Is Boxer correct in her two assertions? If so, tell why, if not, tell why.




Littman, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Litt Systems, Inc, and was incorporated on September 11, 1973, under the laws of the state of Hawaii (see note below) . As a subsidiary, Littman seldom transacted business under its own name. On October 4,1976, a group of organizers filed articles of incorporation with the secretary of state of Hawaii to form a corporation called Littman-Hawaii, Inc. (Littman-Hawaii). Littman and the proposed Littman-Hawaii were two separate entities with different businesses and different owners. After the secretary of state granted a certificate of incorporation to Littman-Hawaii, Littman sued to prevent Littman-Hawaii from using the name. Littman claimed that the name of the new corporation was too similar and could cause confusion. Who wins, and why?

Note: Hawaii Corporation Law is the same as is California’s.


Posted: 27 Feb 2016 01:00 am Post subject: Assignment Due on 3/3/16 Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Several doctors entered a Medical Center partnership to conduct business. In addition to his becoming a general partner, the partnership agreement designated Salabito as the managing partner with authority to sign leases and other contracts, and otherwise manage the partnership. Salabito that he had sold his partnership interest to Hospital Properties, Inc. Salabito further told the partners that part of this sale assigned the right to Hospital properties to manage the partnership. If the sale goes through, what legal rights can Hospital Properties, Inc. acquire from Rabito? (Do not take the easy way out be answering the question that the sale can't through as the partnership is dissolved!!)


11 Mar 2016 04:09 pm Post subject: Assignment Due Next Session 3/17/16 Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Apex Petroleum Corporation (Apex) was the general partner of a limited partnership. The partnership agreement provided: It could be amended by a vote of 70% of the limited partnership units. Over 70% of these units voted to amend the partnership agreement to provide that a vote of 70% of the limited partnership units could remove the general partner and replace it with another general partner. Prior to this amendment, there was no provision for removal and substitution of a general partner. Texas law requires a unanimous approval of new partners unless the partnership agreement provides otherwise. When a vote was held, over 70% of the limited partnership units voted to remove Apex as the general partner and replace it with the WCQ Company Apex challenged removal. Who wins?


PostPosted: 19 Feb 2016 03:05 pm Post subject: Assignment Due 2/25/16 Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Below is the assignment. Also, remember there is a format to use it is this:

Optional: The facts. This is not required in your written answer.

Non-Optional, and you must use the bullet headings:

ISSUE: This is what is the question that you have been asked to answer.

RULE: This is whatever legal principle(s) is/are involved.

ANALYSIS: Your analysis of the facts applying the issue to the rule.

CONCLUSION: Your conclusion (i.e. your answer.)


Georgie Bushie was a political candidate running for congressional office. One of his campaign workers ordered the Barbie Boxer Co. to print some promotional materials for Bushie's campaign. When the printed materials were received, Bushie did not return them but instead used them during his campaign. When Boxer failed to obtain payment from Bushie for the materials, she sued for recovery of the price. Bushie contended that he was not liable on the sales contract because he had not authorized his agent to purchase the printing services. Boxer argued that the campaign worker was Bushie's agent and that the worker had authority to make the printing contract. Additionally, Boxer claimed that even if the purchase was unauthorized, Bushie's use would require Bushie to pay Boxer. Is Boxer correct in her two assertions? If so, tell why, if not, tell why.


PostPosted: 17 Apr 2015 04:38 pm Post subject: Assignment due 4/23/15 Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Do 41.7 in your textbook. (TGS case.) You will have to carefully analyze the case to give me the correct answer to Defendant Coates.

Also, read and be prepared to discuss 41.9. I'm only asking you to review whether Rule 10(b) 5 has been violated. You are not required to submit any written answer for 41.9.


Hean, Inc., became a 25% holder of Q&S, Inc. Hean paid $50K for the purchase. Hean also was a long time customer of Q&S, paying Q&S for use of its computer software program. Since 2003 Hean verified Q&S's billings by periodic review of certain of Q&S's books and records. In 2006 Hean conducted its review of Q&S's records, the review showed: Q&S never paid any dividends on stock held by Hean and Hean never received notice of Q&S's stockholder meetings. Suspecting that Q&S was being mismanaged, Hean sent a letter asking to inspect all of Q&S's records; Hean stated several purposes for inspection, including: (1) determine the reasons for nonpayment of dividends and (2) to gain information to be used in determining how to vote in stockholders' elections. Under the modern trend Should Hean's request be honored? Make sure you give legal support for your answer.


Posted: 25 Mar 2015 08:12 pm Post subject: Future Assignment Lippman Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster:

Lippman, Inc. (Lippman) was incorporated on 9/11/73, under the laws of Wisconsin, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Litton Systems, Inc. As a subsidiary, Lippman seldom transacted business under its own name.
On 10/4/4/76, a group of incorporators filed articles of incorporation with the secretary of state of Wisconsin to form a corporation called Lippman-Milwaukee, Inc. (Lippman-Milwaukee). Lippman and the proposed Lippman-Milwaukee were two separate entities with different businesses and different owners. After the secretary of state granted a certificate of incorporation to Lippman-Milwaukee, Lippman sued to prevent Lippman-Milwaukee from using the name. Lippman claimed that the name of the new corporation was too similar and could cause confusion. Who wins?


osted: 28 Mar 2014 07:39 pm Post subject: Assignment Lippstein Reply with quote Edit/Delete this post Delete this post View IP address of poster
Lippstine, Inc. was incorporated on September 11, 1973, under the laws of the state of California, it is a wholly owned subsidiary of Piston Systems, Inc. As a subsidiary, Lippstine seldom transacted business under its own name.

On October 4,1976, organizers filed articles of incorporation with the secretary of state of California to form a corporation called Lippstine-Sacramento, Inc.

Lippstine, Inc, and the proposed Lippstine-Sacramento, were two separate entities with different businesses and different owners. After the secretary of state granted a certificate of incorporation to Lippstine-Milwaukee, Lippstine, Inc. sued to prevent Lippstine-Milwaukee from using the name. Lippstine, Inc. claimed that the name of the new corporation was too similar and could cause confusion. Who wins? Give legal reasons for your conclusion.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Stuart Waterstone Forum Index -> Notes All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group