Partnership Law - Text Problem PDF

Preview

Summary

Download Partnership Law - Text Problem PDF

Description

Partnership Law - Text Problems Chapter 26 - 26.2 (page 475), 26.3 (page 475) Chapter 30 - none Chapter 31 - 31.2 (page 561), 31.4 (page 561) These problems are located in the text at the end of the specified chapters under the headings, "Critical Legal Thinking Cases" and/or "Ethics Cases." Please post your answers to all of the problems in one submission, using the "Write Submission" icon. Please submit your work in WORD (12 font) with your name on the assignment. Please do not use an attachment. Please do not post your answers in the "Comments" section. Please carefully proofread your work for grammar, spelling, punctuation and capitalization. No late work will be reviewed or graded - there are no exceptions. Please do not email your work to me.

CHAPTER 26 26.2 Two doctors treated patient Elaine Zuckerman in her pregnancy and when her son Daniel Zuckerman was born with a severe physical problem she sued both doctors. Jose Pena one of the doctors was found guilty of medical malpractice but his partner Joseph Antenucci was not. Plaintiff Zuckerman wanted the motion for judgment to be against both doctors. Joint and several-liability is “tort liability of partners together and individually. A plaintiff can sue one or more partners separately. If successful, the plaintiff can recover the entire amount of the judgment from any or all of the defendant-partners who have been found liable” (Cheeseman 466). In this case Doctor Joseph Antenucci is liable as much as doctor Jose Pena because they are joint partners and both doctors treated the patient. 26.3 A lawyer from a partnered law firm when into a restaurant-cocktail around 4:30p.m. at the restaurant Thomas McGrath from Tarbenson, Thatcher, McGrath, Treadwell & Schoonmaker discussed personal and firm-related business while socializing and consuming alcohol until 11:00 p.m. Thomas McGrath later that night saw Fredrick Hayes and exchanged words and started exchanging words outside until McGrath shot Hayes. McGrath and the law firm got sued for damages. Joint liability is “liability of partners for contracts and debts of the partnership. A plaintiff must name the partnership and all of the partners as defendants in a lawsuit” (Cheeseman 466). A tort liability of general partners “while acting ton partnership business, a partner or an employee of the general partnership may commit tort that causes injury to a third person” and “the partners who are made to pay tort liability may seek indemnification from the partner who committed the wrongful act” (Cheeseman 466). Even though McGrath is a part of a law firm because business talk was over at 11:00 p.m. making the case a personal case not involving the law firm what so ever. In this case the law firm is not liable for any damages done out work hours. CHAPTER 31 31.2 June and Robert McCart both have a part in the H&R Block, Inc. Franchise but in different locations. A problem occurred when June in her franchise agreement signed a provision stating that “not to compete (1) in the business of tax preparation (2) within 250 miles of the franchise (3) for a period of two years after the termination of the franchise.” After a good two years June notified H&R Block, Inc. that she was terminating the franchise. After that the McCart’s sent letters notifying clients for H&R Block, Inc. that they no longer work there, and that Robert is opening their own tax preparation business with June assisting him. H&R Block, Inc. sued the McCarts for breach of contract. In this case June signed the provision on the contract not Robert so Robert has the right to open his tax preparation business. A Franchise

agreement is “an agreement that a franchisor and franchisee enter into that sets forth the terms and conditions of a franchise” (Cheeseman 552). In June’s franchise agreement there was a set time she couldn’t do business for but that required time of two years pasted and since she terminated her agreement she hasn’t breached her contract. Robert hasn’t signed that part in the agreement to be making him breach any contract. 31.4 A customer named Sharon Proos Kosters buys a cartoon of Seven-Up in glass bottles from Meijer Thrifty Acres Store in Holland, Michigan. A bottle of the seven up fell broke and a piece of glass went into Kosters’ eye making her go blind. As it turns out the Seven-up Company licenses other bottle companies to manufacture, bottle and distribute with their trademark on the bottles. Each packaging has to be approved by Seven Up if the franchisee wants Seven Up but to purchase the supplies. In this case Seven-UP is liable because they had the control to approve the design since Seven-Up is a seller they should have foreseen the flaw in the design....