MGMT 597 entire course new Flashcards
DEVRY MGMT 597 Entire Course NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-entire-course-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
MGMT 597 Entire Course NEW
MGMT 597 Discussion Week 1 Part 1 NEW
MGMT 597 Discussion Week 1 Part 2 NEW
MGMT 597 Final Exam 1 NEW
MGMT 597 Final Exam 2 NEW
MGMT 597 Week 1 Homework Assignment (2 Sets) NEW
MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 1 Statute of FraudsNEW
MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 2 Revocation of Acceptance of Goods NEW
MGMT 597 Week 2 Homework Assignment (2 Sets) NEW
MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 1 Negotiable Instrument NEW
MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 2 Secured Transactions NEW
MGMT 597 Week 3 Homework Problems (2 Sets) NEW
MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 1 Your Property Rights NEW
MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 2 Personal Property And Bailments NEW
MGMT 597 Week 4 Homework Assignment (2 Sets) NEW
MGMT 597 Week 5 Discussion Part 1 Agency NEW
MGMT 597 Week 5 Discussion Part 2 Partnerships General And Limited NEW
MGMT 597 Week 5 Homework Assignment (2 Sets) NEW
MGMT 597 Week 5 You Decide NEW
MGMT 597 Week 6 Course Project 14.2 Guaranty Contract Page v. Gulf Coast Motors NEW
MGMT 597 Week 6 Course Project 37.2 Duty of Care Smith v. Van Gorkom NEW
MGMT 597 Week 6 Course Project 39.1 Siva v. 1138 LLC NEW
MGMT 597 Week 6 Discussion Part 1 Sarbanes-Oxley Act NEW
MGMT 597 Week 6 Discussion Part 2 Piercing The Corporate Veil NEW
MGMT 597 Week 6 Homework Assignment (2 Sets) NEW
MGMT 597 Week 7 Homework Questions (2 Sets) NEW
DEVRY MGMT 597 Entire Course NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-entire-course-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Discussion Week 1 Part 1 NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-discussion-week-1-part-1-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
Contract law may seem simple on its surface. At its base you need an offer plus acceptance supported by consideration. That seems easy enough. However, there are endless nuances when it comes to contract law and numerous ways a contract can go wrong. In keeping with the TCO for this week (restated at the top of this page), it’s not enough that we are able to define a contract. In order to have a good grasp of contract law, I think it’s important to know a bit about the sources and origins of contract law, and some of the theories that are used to interpret contracts.
So, what are some of the sources of contract law? How has contract law evolved over time?
Also, please take a look at Case 9.1 (Bickham v. Washington Bank & Trust) on page 164 of your text. What do you guys think about this case? Did the objective theory of contracts work here? Do you agree with the court’s decision?
Question
Class, consideration is another of the essential elements in contract formation. I think it’s fairly clear that in order to enter into a valid contract, you must have an offer and an acceptance. That is logical. What may not be quite as clear is the concept of consideration. Some of you have mentioned it, but let’s have a thorough discussion of what consideration is. What is consideration? Why do you think the law requires consideration to be present in order for a contact to be considered valid and binding? What happens if consideration is lacking? Are there any ways lacking consideration may be overcome?
Question
Elements of a Contract
Take a look at the Contract you pulled from your records when reading our Week 1 Introduction. What is the Offer and what is the Acceptance? What consideration was given by both parties to the contract? What other clauses attracted your attention–Limited Warranty and Disclaimer of Implied Warranties? Conflict Resolution?
DEVRY MGMT 597 Discussion Week 1 Part 1 NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-discussion-week-1-part-1-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Discussion Week 1 Part 2 NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-discussion-week-1-part-2-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
Class, after viewing this video was there an offer of a lease for the equipment? If so, how long was the lease? What price was the lease in the offer? Was there an acceptance? What exactly was accepted if there was an acceptance?
We will see that trying to answer all of these questions will lead us to quite a bit of uncertainty, even from our objective viewpoint of trying to determine whether a contract was formed. Remember that we should approach this video and our question of whether there was an offer or acceptance from the point of view of a judge who is asked to view the video and decide whether a contract.
Question
Let’s assume for the moment that a contract is not formed in the video because a judge finds that the language used is not sufficiently definite to constitute an enforceable contract. Is the salesman out of luck? What about promissory estoppel as another means for the salesman to obtain a remedy for allowing the equipment to be used for one month?
DEVRY MGMT 597 Discussion Week 1 Part 2 NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-discussion-week-1-part-2-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 1 Your Property Rights NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.assignmentcloud.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-4-discussion-part-1-your-property-rights-new
For more classes visit
http://www.assignmentcloud.com
MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 1 Your Property Rights NEW
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 1 Your Property Rights NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.assignmentcloud.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-4-discussion-part-1-your-property-rights-new
For more classes visit
http://www.assignmentcloud.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Final Exam 1 NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-final-exam-1-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
Question 1. Question : (TCO A, C) Major Media Station, which broadcasts TV and radio programs around the country, contracts with shock jock Don Marco, who hosts the station’s most successful morning drive radio program in the country: Mark My Words. The program consists of traffic and sports updates, interviews with sports figures and celebrities, and Mark’s Words, which are in the nature of rants and opinions on whatever topic of interest the host decides to focus on, including news articles and happenings around the country and locally. Audience participation is encouraged by way of phone calls to the station during the program.
On more than one occasion, Mark My Words has made national news because of controversial statements made by the host regarding people’s looks, religion, lack of intelligence, actions, race, etc. In fact, the contract between Major Media Station and Don Marco specifies that Mark My Words is to be controversial. The greater the controversy, the higher the audience ratings and the higher Marco’s compensation. However, the term controversial is not defined, although the station manager who broadcasts Mark My Words is responsible for activating a delay button in the event Marco uses a word or makes comments that would cause the FCC to fine the station.
One morning, Mark My Words featured a rant full of derogatory sexual and racial comments about the members of a visiting ball team that succeeded in beating the local favored team at the championship game. As soon as the program aired, Major Media Station was bombarded with complaints. Following letters to sponsors and pressure from respected public figures, three large sponsors cancelled their advertising contracts. This happened in spite of the host’s public apology in which he claimed to have just made another stupid comment. In spite of fan protests, the station terminated Don Marco’s five-year $20 million contract. The contract was in its second year.
Marco is now suing Major Media Station for breach of contract, and the insulted players are also suing the station for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
i. What arguments do you think Marco will make in his suit against Major Media Station?
ii. In order to support his claim against the station, Marco wishes to introduce parol evidence regarding the term controversial. What would be the purpose of introducing this evidence? What arguments will Major Media Station make in opposition to the introduction of this evidence? Will Marco be successful in this regard, and why?
iii. As for the tort claims by the insulted players, Major Media Station argues it has no liability, as Don Marco is an independent contractor who is solely responsible for his rants, and that his public apology constitutes an admission of liability. Is Major Media Station off the hook?
Question 2. Question : TCO B, D) Kimberly is a general partner with Jared, Joshua, and Diane in a general partnership called KJJD Partners. The partnership operates a fast food joint called We Nail The Burger! Each partner contributed $100,000 to capitalize the business. The partners hire staff to run the restaurant and stop in on occasion for lunch. The business gets its chopped meat from a local supplier to all the local diners.
While enjoying a beer and a burger after taking this Final Exam at We Nail The Burger!, Patricia bites into her burger and cracks a tooth on a fake nail, which is now embedded in her tongue. She gathers her classmates as witnesses, and lisping heavily, says to the manager, “I will THUU you.” The partners, who happen to be there for lunch, laugh at the irony of a nail in the burger, but are not worried about liability because they have insurance and they have nothing to do with the running of the place, especially ordering food and cooking. Unfortunately, Patricia loses half her tongue as a result of the injury, and the judgment against the partnership exceeds the insurance coverage and partnership capital by $1 million.
i. From whom may Patricia collect the extra $1 million in damages? How much can she collect and why? Be sure to address the liability of Kimberly, Jared, Diane, and Joshua, including the extent of liability of general versus limited partners. Does the fact that they employ others to run the restaurant make a difference?
ii. Let’s say Kimberly ends up paying the excess $1 million in damages, can Kimberly collect anything from her partner friends? Explain.
iii. Is there another type of business entity that KJJD could have used in order to minimize personal liability for things like this?
Question 3. Question : (TCO E, H) Simple writes Sharp a $1,000 check and receives in return a defective computer. The transaction from Sharp was fraud. Tonights LLP, a CPA firm, audits the financial documents of Sharp. Sharp then negotiates the check to Trusty, who qualifies as a holder in due course. Then Sharp buys back the check from Trusty. Has Sharp, thereby, acquired the rights of a holder in due course? What are the responsibilities of Tonights LLP in this situation?
Question 4. Question : (TCO F, G) Your home is burglarized. Among the stolen items is a $3,000 custom-made pendant from your grandmother. You are heartbroken. The lead detective on the case, Jack Clouseau, is as bad as the inspector in the movies, so you circulate flyers around the neighborhood and the local stores and pawn shops and offer a $500 reward for information leading to the recovery of the item, no questions asked.
Shortly thereafter, you receive a call from Giovanni, the local pizza parlor owner telling you he saw the local hoodlum’s girlfriend, DeeDee Flat wearing the pendant described in your flyer. You call the police and meet them at the pizza parlor, where DeeDee is confronted and placed under arrest. DeeDee claims she purchased the pendant from the local pawnshop and is a bona fide purchaser for value.
While this drama unfolds, Giovanni receives a certified letter informing him that the pizza ovens he ordered F.O.B. point of shipment from Philadelphia were destroyed in transit. The letter includes a bill for the ovens. Giovanni is outraged. He never even saw the ovens and he is being billed for them.
i. Giovanni is now claiming the reward. Does he collect? Explain.
ii. DeeDee claims because she is a bona fide purchaser for value, that she is entitled to keep the pendant. Is she correct? Why or why not?
iii. Who is responsible for the loss of the pizza ovens in transit the shipper or Giovanni? Explain.
Question 5. Question : (TCO C, D/G) Current legislation limits the amount of economic-related liabilities to be paid by a company on account of an oil spill to $75 million. A move to amend that legislation and raise the liability cap to $10 billion was blocked in the Senate because Big Petroleum, who is responsible for a recent spill has given its word that it would cover the cost of all damages and cleanup costs deriving from a recent oil spill in an ecologically significant marine area that supports a thriving fisheries and recreation industry and is home to many endangered and threatened marine animals and waterfowl. Big Petroleum’s Chairman of the Board made the statement after convening a Special Meeting of the Board and studying videos of the damage taken by film crews.
It is estimated that actual costs of clean up and industry losses could even exceed the $10 billion proposed cap. Meanwhile, other companies involved in the oil spill have now gone to court invoking limits on their liability as provided by law.
While you sympathize with the people, animals, and industries affected, as a stockholder in Big Petroleum you are outraged at the decision of the board of directors to accept full economic responsibility for the damage when the total is unknown. After all, there is a HUGE difference between $75 million and billions of dollars! And, the board even voted to pay $25 million for an ad campaign for one state to let tourists know its beaches are clean. Nuts! This liability could wipe out your investment and ruin your retirement and that of other investors, including several pension plans that are heavily invested in Big Petroleum.
i. What kind of lawsuit would you bring and for what purpose? Explain.
ii. What defense or defenses will Big Petroleum invoke?
Question 6. Question : (TCO C, D, G, H) Petunia is in the business of selling flower bulbs. Petunia’s sales agent is Astilbe. While sales agents generally warrant the quality of the goods they sell, Petunia specifically told Astilbe not to make any warranties on the bulbs she sells. Further, Petunia wrote each of her customers to inform them of this policy. About two months later, Astilbe made a prohibited warranty in order to sell Tulip 1,000 Gladioli bulbs. Tulip was an established customer who knew that Astilbe was acting on Petunia’s behalf and who also had been informed of Petunia’s warranty policy, but who honestly forgot about the policy while dealing with Astilbe and truly thought Astilbe had authority to make the warranty. Is Petunia contractually liable to Tulip here? Is Astilbe liable to Tulip?
DEVRY MGMT 597 Final Exam 1 NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-final-exam-1-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Final Exam 2 NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-final-exam-2-recent
For more classes visit
http: //www.uopassignments.com
1. Question:
(TCO A, C) Jim worked for AAA Job Shop, Inc. for over 30 years. Two months before Jim retired, the head of human resources told Jim that the company would pay for health insurance for Jim and his wife for the remainder of his life, and for his wife’s life if she were to survive him, and handed Jim a letter from the company describing this. Jim had always known that the company provided this benefit to a few of its select employees. Jim didn’t really expect that he would receive it, although he had secretly hoped so for some time. Four years after retirement, Jim contracted cancer and incurred substantial medical bills under his insurance plan. Jim then received a letter from his former employer saying that the employer was discontinuing its payment of health insurance for those retirees who were receiving this benefit. Jim is considering suing the company to force it to live up to its agreement. Discuss the issues and likely resolution of Jim’s case.
2.Question:
(TCO B, D) At Super Car Outlet, Joan was negotiating with Marge for the purchase of a used car. Marge told Joan that she would fix any problems with the drivetrain that arose in the first 1,000 miles. After further negotiation, they signed a written agreement that provided that the sale was made “as is, without any warranties.” After driving the car for 400 miles, the antilock brake system failed. Marge denied having made the repair promise. But she said she would cover $200 of the repair costs. Joan then took the car to be repaired at a cost of $487. Joan now wants to recover the full repair costs from Marge. Marge refuses to pay any amount. Discuss the issues that would arise in this case.
3.Question :
(TCO E, H) Determine whether the following instrument is a negotiable instrument, addressing all the requirements of negotiability in your response.
I, James Wyatt, promise to pay $12,000 to Buck’s Bikes in four equal installments of principal, beginning on January 1, 2011, and on the same day in each of the next three years. Each payment will consist of $3,000 in principal, plus interest accrued since the date of this note, in the case of the first payment, or since the prior payment in the case of all other payments. Interest shall accrue at the rate of 4% per annum, or in the event of default, at the maximum rate allowed by law until the default is cured. This note is secured by collateral consisting of various machines. This note may be paid in whole or in part prior to the due dates, and the interest accrued will be reduced accordingly. The due date for any payment under this note may be extended by mutual agreement of the parties up to six months from the due date as stated herein. The proceeds of this Is this case a contract agreement or not?
4.Question :
(TCO F, G) Fred had been away at college getting his master’s degree for 12 years and recently returned to his hometown. Some friends of his parents had a carriage house above their garage that they sometimes rented out. When Fred graduated, this carriage house was vacant and the owner told Fred that he could stay there until he found another place that he wanted. The owner initially did not want Fred to pay anything, but Fred started paying $100 a week.
Fred then sent a note at the beginning of August saying, “Here is $500 for the month of August. I know I hadn’t planned to be here this long, but I hope this is acceptable.” The owner cashed the check, but the topic was never discussed. Fred sent $500 at the beginning of September and October, but on October 15 the owner came to Fred with $100 and said, “Enough is enough. Here’s some of the money you gave for October. You are lucky to get that back. You have an hour to get all your stuff out of here.” Fred says he paid for October and is not leaving. He also said that he is entitled to at least a month’s notice. Discuss the type of tenancy created, if any, and the rights of the parties in these circumstances.
5.Question :
(TCO C, D, G) Fred is a director of the ALLSTAR Corporation, which is engaged in the business of creating and marketing toys and games. A proposal is made to the board to manufacture and market a toy bird that really flies. Market surveys have been done to indicate that the toy would be a good seller, and engineering studies have been done testing the feasibility of such a product. Fred reviews this information and votes in favor of producing this new toy. The vote was 7 to 4 in favor. ALLSTAR produces and markets this new toy bird, but sales are very slow. After several years of losing money, ALLSTAR discontinues this toy. Tina, a shareholder of ALLSTAR, thinks the toy bird venture was a waste of time and money. In fact, she thinks the idea was so bad that she sues Fred for breach of his fiduciary duty of due care in making the decision to proceed with the bird. Discuss the general standards of due care of a director of a corporation, and determine whether Fred is liable in this situation.
6.Question :
(TCO D, H) Jennifer has recently developed a software program tailored for the upscale coffee shop industry. Jennifer has begun marketing her program and has had some success selling to small independent stores. She is now ready to begin marketing to franchisees of the national chains with the hope that a franchisor might make the software part of its required franchisee package. Jennifer wants to keep the business separate from her personal affairs, so she has set up separate checking accounts, separate phone lines, and has set up a fictitious business name that does not use her name. She has filed a fictitious business name statement in the appropriate state office. She has written a will in which she has declared that in the event of her death, her business and personal assets and liabilities are to be kept separate, just as they were during her life. Her personal checks say, “Jennifer Lones, personal account only.” Discuss the extent to which Jennifer has insulated her personal assets from any business losses.
DEVRY MGMT 597 Final Exam 2 NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-final-exam-2-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 1 Homework Assignment (2 Sets) NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-1-homework-assignment-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
case in chapter 9.4
case in chapter 10.7
case in chapter 11.4
case in chapter 13.1
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 1 Homework Assignment (2 Sets) NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-1-homework-assignment-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 1 Statute of Frauds NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
h http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-2-discussion-part-1-statute-of-frauds-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 1 Statute of Frauds NEW
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 1 Statute of Frauds NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
h http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-2-discussion-part-1-statute-of-frauds-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 2 Revocation of Acceptance of Goods NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-2-discussion-part-2-revocation-of-acceptance-of-goods-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 2 Revocation of Acceptance of Goods NEW
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 2 Discussion Part 2 Revocation of Acceptance of Goods NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-2-discussion-part-2-revocation-of-acceptance-of-goods-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 2 Homework Assignment (2 Sets) NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-2-homework-assignment-recent
For more classes visit
http: //www.uopassignments.com
14. 2 Real Property
- 8 Specific Performance
- 2 Good or Service
- 3 Revocation of Acceptance
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 2 Homework Assignment (2 Sets) NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-2-homework-assignment-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 1 Negotiable Instrument NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-3-discussion-part-1-negotiable-instrument-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 1 Negotiable Instrument NEW
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 1 Negotiable Instrument NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-3-discussion-part-1-negotiable-instrument-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 2 Secured Transactions NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-3-discussion-part-2-secured-transactions-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 2 Secured Transactions NEW
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 3 Discussion Part 2 Secured Transactions NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-3-discussion-part-2-secured-transactions-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 3 Homework Problems(2 Sets) NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-3-homework-problems-recent
For more classes visit
http: //www.uopassignments.com
1) -Problem Chapter 22.10 Reference to Another Agreement - Holly Hill Acres, Ltd. (Holly Hill), purchased land from Rogers and Blythe. As part of its consideration, Holly Hill gave Rogers and Blythe a promissory note and purchase money mortgage. Does the reference to the mortgage in the note cause it to be nonnegotiable?Holly Hill Acres, Ltd. v. Charter Bank of Gainesville, 314 So.2d 209, Web 1975 Fla.App. Lexis 13715 (Court of Appeal of Florida)
2) Problem Chapter 23.8 - Business Ethics - Anthony and Dolores Angelini entered into a contract with Lustro Aluminum Products, Inc. (Lustro). Under the contract, Lustro agreed to replace exterior veneer General, as a holder in due course, demanded payment of the note from the Angelinis. Who wins? General Investment Corporation v. Angelini, 278 A.2d 193, Web 1971 N.J. Lexis 263 (Supreme Court of New Jersey)
3) Problem Chapter 24.13 - Business Ethics - Warren and Kristina Mahaffey were approached by a salesman from the Five Star Solar Screens Company (Five Star). The salesman offered to install insulation in their home ….. Did Five Star Solar Screens Company act ethically in this case? Can the Mahaffeys successfully assert the defense of breach of contract by Five Star against the enforcement of the note by Mortgage Finance? Mahaffey v. Investor’s National Security Company, 103 Nev. 615, 747 P.2d 890, Web 1987 Nev. Lexis 1875 (Supreme Court of Nevada)
4) Problem Chapter 27.2- Priority of Security Agreements - World Wide Tracers, Inc. (World Wide), sold certain of its assets and properties, including equipment, furniture, uniforms, accounts receivable, and contract rights, to Metropolitan Protection, Inc. (Metropolitan)….Bank filed a counterclaim, asserting its perfected security interest in Metropolitan’s accounts receivable. Who wins? World Wide Tracers, Inc. v. Metropolitan Protection, Inc., 384 N.W.2d 442, Web 1986 Minn. Lexis 753 (Supreme Court of Minnesota)
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 3 Homework Problems(2 Sets) NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.uopassignments.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-3-homework-problems-recent
For more classes visit
http://www.uopassignments.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 7 Homework Questions (2 Sets) NEW
http://www.assignmentcloud.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-7-homework-questions-new
For more classes visit
http://www.assignmentcloud.com
Chapter 41.2
Definition of Security The Farmer’s Cooperative of Arkansas and Oklahoma (Co-Op) was an agricultural cooperative that had approximately 23,000 members. To raise money to support its general business operations, Co-Op sold to investors promissory notes that were payable upon demand. Co-Op offered the notes to both members and non-members, advertised the notes as an “investment program,” and offered an interest rate higher than that available on savings accounts at financial institutions. More than 1,600 people purchased the notes, worth a total of $10 million. Subsequently, Co-Op filed for bankruptcy. A class of holders of the notes filed suit against Ernst & Young, a national firm of certified public accountants that had audited Co-Op’s financial statements, alleging that Ernst & Young had violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Are the notes issued by Co-Op “securities”? Reeves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 110 S.Ct. 945, 108 L.Ed.2d 47, Web 1990 U.S. Lexis 1051 (Supreme Court of the United States)
Chapter 41.7
Insider Trading Donald C. Hoodes was the chief executive officer of the Sullair Corporation. As an officer of the corporation, he was regularly granted stock options to purchase stock of the company at a discount. On July 20, Hoodes sold 6,000 shares of Sullair common stock for $38,350. On July 31, Sullair terminated Hoodes as an officer of the corporation. On August 20, Hoodes exercised options to purchase 6,000 shares of Sullair stock that cost Hoodes $3.01 per share ($18,060) at the time they were trading at $4.50 per share ($27,000). Hoodes did not possess material nonpublic information about Sullair when he sold or purchased the securities of the company. The corporation brought suit against Hoodes to recover the profits Hoodes made on these trades. Who wins? Sullair Corporation v. Hoodes, 672 F.Supp. 337, Web 1987 U.S. Dist. Lexis 10152 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois)
Chapter 51.5
Ultramares Doctrine Texscan Corporation (Texscan) was a corporation located in Phoenix, Arizona. The company was audited by Coopers & Lybrand (Coopers), a national CPA firm that prepared audited financial statements for the company. The Lindner Fund, Inc., and the Lindner Dividend Fund, Inc. (Lindner Funds), were mutual funds that invested in securities of companies. After receiving and reviewing the audited financial statements of Texscan, Lindner Funds purchased securities in the company. Thereafter, Texscan suffered financial difficulties, and Lindner Funds suffered substantial losses on its investment. Lindner Funds sued Coopers, alleging that Coopers was negligent in conducting the audit and preparing Texscan’s financial statements. Can Coopers be held liable to Lindner Funds for accounting malpractice under the Ultramares doctrine, Section 552 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, or the foreseeability standard? Lindner Fund v. Abney, 770 S.W.2d 437, Web 1989 Mo.App. Lexis 490 (Court of Appeals of Missouri)
Chapter 51.7
Accountant–Client Privilege For five years, Chaple, an accountant licensed by the state of Georgia, provided accounting services to Roberts and several corporations in which Roberts was an officer and shareholder (collectively called Roberts). During this period, Roberts provided Chaple with confidential information, with the expectation that this information would not be disclosed to third parties. Georgia statutes provide for an accountant–client privilege. When the IRS began investigating Roberts, Chaple, voluntarily and without being subject to a subpoena, released some of this confidential information about Roberts to the IRS. Roberts sued Chaple, seeking an injunction to prevent further disclosure, requesting return of all information in Chaple’s possession, and seeking monetary damages. Who wins? Roberts v. Chaple, 187 Ga.App. 123, 369 S.E.2d 482, Web 1988 Ga.App. Lexis 554 (Court of Appeals of Georgia)
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 7 Homework Questions (2 Sets) NEW
http://www.assignmentcloud.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-7-homework-questions-new
For more classes visit
http://www.assignmentcloud.com
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 2 Personal Property And Bailments NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.assignmentcloud.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-4-discussion-part-2-personal-property-and-bailments-new
For more classes visit
http://www.assignmentcloud.com
MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 2 Personal Property And Bailments NEW
DEVRY MGMT 597 Week 4 Discussion Part 2 Personal Property And Bailments NEW
Check this A+ tutorial guideline at
http://www.assignmentcloud.com/mgmt-597-devry/mgmt-597-week-4-discussion-part-2-personal-property-and-bailments-new
For more classes visit
http://www.assignmentcloud.com
