TRY ME!
Corporation Contract Ratification Explained
Summary
In business law, when forming a corporation, unauthorized contracts made by founders can be ratified by the corporation if done in good faith. This means the corporation can adopt the contract as its own, even if the founder initially lacked authority. In agency law, implied authority can arise from past behavior, and actions can be voidable if unauthorized. Employers may face liability for employees actions under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Security agreements bind parties, and defaulting on a loan can lead to repossession, with limited rights to terminate the agreement unilaterally. Understanding these principles is crucial for navigating legal obligations in business and employment contexts.Full Conversation
*. Based upon our class discussions and the facts of the case scenario presented in class, which of the following is true:
a. ADM had the right to terminate the interns, but it did not have the power.
b. The interns’ past behavior created implied authority to purchase the liquor.
c. The interns’ actions were voidable since their actions were unauthorized.
d. Two of the above.
e. None of the above
It seems like you're trying to determine the correct answer based on the class discussions and facts of the scenario. Based on the information given:
- Option (a) suggests ADM had the right but no power, which seems contradictory.
- Option (b) suggests implied authority due to past behavior, which can happen in agency law if the behavior consistently indicated authority.
- Option (c) suggests actions were voidable due to lack of authorization, which is consistent with agency law principles.
- Option (d) suggests two of the above are correct, which requires determining which two fit together.
- Option (e) suggests none are correct, which seems unlikely given the options presented.
Considering the typical principles of agency law, option (d) might be correct if both (b) and (c) are valid under the scenario.
If you have more details or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
- Option (a) suggests ADM had the right but no power, which seems contradictory.
- Option (b) suggests implied authority due to past behavior, which can happen in agency law if the behavior consistently indicated authority.
- Option (c) suggests actions were voidable due to lack of authorization, which is consistent with agency law principles.
- Option (d) suggests two of the above are correct, which requires determining which two fit together.
- Option (e) suggests none are correct, which seems unlikely given the options presented.
Considering the typical principles of agency law, option (d) might be correct if both (b) and (c) are valid under the scenario.
If you have more details or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Josephine Mama (Jo Mama) is the CEO of Plush Toys, Inc. (Plush), a small corporation. One day, a man began arguing with Jo Mama about the price of one of its plush stuffed animals, Little Foo Foo. Jo Mama tells one her employees, Big Bubba, “Throw this chump out.” Bubba hits the guy in the face with a Little Foo Foo stuffed animal and throws the guy out the door. However, the guy fell on his face, broke his nose, and fractured his jaw. The guy sues.
Based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, which of following is true:
Based on the scenario provided and the principles of agency law, Jo Mama, as the CEO, may face liability due to her instruction to Big Bubba, which led to the guy's injuries. Here's the likely interpretation:
- Respondeat Superior: Plush Toys, Inc. could be held liable for Big Bubba's actions since they occurred during the course of his employment and were directed by Jo Mama.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
- Respondeat Superior: Plush Toys, Inc. could be held liable for Big Bubba's actions since they occurred during the course of his employment and were directed by Jo Mama.
If you have any more questions or need further clarification, feel free to ask!
Based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, which of following is true:
a. If he sues Plush for battery under direct liability, he will lose unless he can prove Bubba had violent tendencies (before he was hired) and that a reasonable employer would have known this using due care and due diligence.
b. If he sues Plush for battery under vicarious liability, he will lose unless he can prove that Jo Mam’s instructions resulted in negligent supervision.
c. If he sues Plush for battery under direct liability, he will lose unless he can prove that Bubba’s actions were part of his regular job assignments.
d. All of the above.
e. None of the above.
Case Rating: *
Based on the scenario you provided, the correct answer is:
b. If he sues Plush for battery under vicarious liability, he will lose unless he can prove that Jo Mam’s instructions resulted in negligent supervision.
This choice aligns with the principle that vicarious liability requires the employer to have been negligent in some way, such as through inadequate supervision or improper instructions.
Based on the scenario you provided, the correct answer is:
b. If he sues Plush for battery under vicarious liability, he will lose unless he can prove that Jo Mam’s instructions resulted in negligent supervision.
This choice aligns with the principle that vicarious liability requires the employer to have been negligent in some way, such as through inadequate supervision or improper instructions.
Professor sends Danielle out to buy doughnuts for the class Sunday review. Danielle comes back with doughnuts, napkins, several liters of hot coffee, orange juice, and champagne (for Mimosas).
Based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, which of the following is true:
a. Danielle has violated her duty to obey.
b. Danielle does not have implied authority to buy the napkins, coffee, orange juice, or champagne.
c. Professor cannot simply ratify the napkins and coffee, and not include the orange juice and champagne.
d. Two of the above.
e. All of the above.
Case Rating: *
In this situation, consider the principles of agency law:
- a. Danielle has violated her duty to obey.: Possible, as she exceeded her instructions.
- b. Danielle does not have implied authority to buy the napkins, coffee, orange juice, or champagne.: Likely true for champagne and possibly orange juice.
- c. Professor cannot simply ratify the napkins and coffee, and not include the orange juice and champagne.: Ratification can be selective.
The correct answer is likely d. Two of the above, referring to options a and b.
In this situation, consider the principles of agency law:
- a. Danielle has violated her duty to obey.: Possible, as she exceeded her instructions.
- b. Danielle does not have implied authority to buy the napkins, coffee, orange juice, or champagne.: Likely true for champagne and possibly orange juice.
- c. Professor cannot simply ratify the napkins and coffee, and not include the orange juice and champagne.: Ratification can be selective.
The correct answer is likely d. Two of the above, referring to options a and b.
Wanda wants to buy a new Tesla Model Y for $*,*. She goes to the bank to borrow the money to buy the car. The bank enters into a written security agreement with Wanda, and they agree that the car will be collateral for the loan. Wanda misses several payments on the car and the bank repossesses the car. The bank puts the car up for auction.
Based upon our class discussions and the facts presented, which of the following is true:
a. Wanda does not have the power or the right to terminate the agency with the bank.
b. Wanda has the right to terminate the agency with the bank but not the power.
c. Wanda has the power to terminate the agency with the bank but not the right.
d. Wanda has both the power and right to terminate the agency with the bank.
e. Two of the above.
Case Rating: *
In this scenario, Wanda has entered into a security agreement with the bank, making the car collateral for the loan. When she defaults on payments, the bank has the right to repossess and auction the car. Regarding agency, Wanda does not have the right or power to terminate the agreement unilaterally; therefore, the correct answer is likely:
a. Wanda does not have the power or the right to terminate the agency with the bank.
In this scenario, Wanda has entered into a security agreement with the bank, making the car collateral for the loan. When she defaults on payments, the bank has the right to repossess and auction the car. Regarding agency, Wanda does not have the right or power to terminate the agreement unilaterally; therefore, the correct answer is likely:
a. Wanda does not have the power or the right to terminate the agency with the bank.
why is it not C?
Case Rating: *
In the scenario, Wanda defaulted on the loan, and the bank repossessed the car. Wanda does not have the power or right to terminate the agreement unilaterally because the security agreement binds her once she defaults. Option c implies Wanda has power but not the right, which is incorrect because both are absent due to the contractual obligation. If you need more clarification on contractual obligations or agency law, feel free to ask!
In the scenario, Wanda defaulted on the loan, and the bank repossessed the car. Wanda does not have the power or right to terminate the agreement unilaterally because the security agreement binds her once she defaults. Option c implies Wanda has power but not the right, which is incorrect because both are absent due to the contractual obligation. If you need more clarification on contractual obligations or agency law, feel free to ask!
Power: Wanda, as the borrower and original owner of the car, generally retains the power to terminate the agency relationship. This means she can express her intent to end the bank's authority to act on her behalf.
Right: However, Wanda likely does not have the right to terminate the agency. The security agreement gives the bank specific rights to repossess and sell the car upon default. Terminating the agency would be a breach of contract, as the bank has a secured interest.
Case Rating: *
It seems like you're dealing with a scenario involving agency law and contract obligations. The key distinction here is between "power" and "right" in the context of terminating an agency relationship. Would you like more information on how security agreements work in Wisconsin?
It seems like you're dealing with a scenario involving agency law and contract obligations. The key distinction here is between "power" and "right" in the context of terminating an agency relationship. Would you like more information on how security agreements work in Wisconsin?
Start a new chat