From the information presented to myself by Kacey Musgraves it is known that Kacey, operating under “Arrow Consulting”, was asked to perform consulting services by Eric Pasley. All documents received by Kacey from Eric were presented with the name “Paslay, Bryan & Brooks, Barristers & Solicitors**” and it was to her knowledge that she was performing work for this particular group. The work was completed on November 25th, 2013, and an invoice was billed to “Paslay, Bryan & Brooks, Barristers & Solicitors**” on Decemeber 1st, 2013. Eric Paslay passed away later that December in a ski accident. On January 2nd, 2014, Kacey made a phone call to “Paslay, Bryan & Brooks, Barristers & Solicitors**” and spoke to Louisa Bryan. At this point, Louisa informed Kacey that she and Keith Brooks had no intentions to pay her outstanding account of $40,000 and that Eric was bankrupt. Louisa told Kacey that they were not a partnership but lawyers practiced “in association” and that this information can be located on their website. Kacey found out that the lawyers work under their own names with separate bank accounts and share the cost of the rent and the receptionist equally. The lawyers would sometimes work on a client file together and divide the profits equally. The website now read “Bryan & Brooks” rather than “Paslay, Bryan and Brooks”…
Pochter were an LLC member sued the other member for breaching their operating agreement. It involved the selling of a piece of land, not informing the managing members of the LLC, and sending an email to these members after agreeing to the deal. Because the member who sold the land was a lawyer, the court found his advancement of his own self-interest with disregard to that of a fellow non-manager member was unacceptable. In our situation, Levitt is making a claim the other members breached their operating agreement by removing him as manager and these facts are different from Moede v. Pochter. The similarity between the two cases is the selling, or in our case not selling, land that is in the best interest of one member, but not of all the members. Levitt wanted to sell the parcel without consulting his fellow members and at the same time, Bivins did not want the parcel to be sold because she would lose management fees. However, again there are some facts missing to show each definitively acted in their own self-interest and, therefore, be guilty of…
This situation between John and Mark is kind of unique. John signs a contract to sell some of his property to Mark on August 1st, but John delays the date until November 1st and we do not know the reason for Johns delay. This makes Mark must incur additional expenses for his national dog breeding company called Remington Sporting Dog Breeders. Mark must find a suitable alternate location to house his dogs until the new November closing date.…
(Facts) The State of Georgia has enacted a law requiring contoured rear-fender mud flaps on all trucks and trailers operating within Georgia. Thirty-five other states allow straight mud flaps and Florida requires straight mud flaps.…
Should a party to a lawsuit have to hand over its confidential business secrets as part of a discovery request? Why or why not? What limitations might a court consider imposing before requiring ATC to produce this material?…
Easily changed, reinforced by section 19 which states “The mutual rights and duties of partners, whether ascertained by agreement or defined by this Act, may be varied by the consent of all the partners, and such consent may be either expressed or inferred from a course of dealing” A…
Under the entity approach, the sale of a partnership interest would be very similar to the sale of corporate stock. The partner would recognize capital gain or loss on the sale based on the difference between the sales price and the partner’s tax basis in the partnership interest.…
Nasc Services, Inc v. Jervis 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40502 (U.S. Dist. Ct. D. N.J. 2008)…
UPL. Polly would be using her knowledge in the legal field to answer Mr. Smith’s question. If on…
ROSE & FRANK COMPANY V JR CROMPTON & BROS LTD (agreed to be bound by principle)…
In definition, a partnership is “the relationship which subsists between persons carrying on a business in common with a view of profit.” Section 5 Partnership Act (1891). In the case regarding the outstanding debt owed by JJJ Boutique to Elegant Design Furniture Pty Ltd. (EDFPL) for the sale and delivery of the Versace couch and side table, it is evident through common law in the case of Khan v Miah [2000] that a partnership does exist. In this particular case, the House of Lords ruled that “a partnership commences when the proposed partners take the first step to implement their business plan” thus confirming the partnership between Kylie and Kendall. To further confirm the partnership between Kylie and Kendall, it is known that both partners receive a profit directly from the business.…
In 1996, Stafford Fontenot, Steve Turner, Mike Montelaro, Joe Sokol, and Doug Brinsmade decided to go to Atlanta, Georgia, the site of the Olympic Games to sell Cajun food. They started the preparations about 6 month before, choosing “Prairie Cajun Seafood Catering of Louisiana” as their name. On May 19, they applied for a license with the designated department in Fulton County, Georgia. Later on, Mr Fontenot and his friends, agreed to buy a mobile kitchen to Ted Norris for the amount of $50,000. After negotiations, they paid $8,000 down payment with a check, using the “Prairie Cajun Seafood Catering of Louisiana’s” checking account and the balance was divided in two promissory notes ($12,000 and $20,000). Stafford Fontenot was the only name listed on the notes, but once Mr Norris’s lawyer agreed to add “doing business as Prairie Cajun Seafood” after Fontenot’s name, he signed the promissory notes dated June 12, 1996. Over a month later, on July 31, the group signed an article of partnership containing specific divisions of profits and losses. Ready to enter into the market, they went to Atlanta, but business did not go well and they couldn’t pay the promissory notes. Consequently, Mr Norris filed a suit against Mr Fontenot to recover the amounts due on the notes. The defendant affirmed they didn’t pay for the notes but that he was only liable for his part of the debt, because he signed the notes on behalf of the partnership. Ted Norris, on the other hand, testified that he did business with Stafford Fontenot and he assumed that the rest of the group was associated with Stafford who, according to Mr Norris believed, owned the company.…
In the case of Kostres and Kostres [2009] FamCAFC, the parties had executed a pre-nuptial agreement with the intention to mutually share the assets obtained during marriage in the event of a divorce. Mrs Kostres sought to uphold the terms of the agreement but dispute arose regarding the interpretation of the agreement. On appeal by the husband, the Full Court nullified the financial agreement due to the difficulty in determining the intentions of the parties. Although financial agreements are aimed at achieving justice for parties, this case indicates that interests of parties become conflicting as the relationship breaks down, hence undermining the original…
The legal system continuously endeavours and reforms to provide effective legislative remedies and modify existing legislation to reflect the changing nature of the Australian family structure. Family law has always been a colossal aspect of Australian society with many effective measures in place for family matters. Numerous values and their effectiveness have been debated through various features of family law, and these debates continue to the present day.…
ISSUE: Does the admission of Mrs. Timmerman’s our-of-court statement inviolate Mr. Timmerman’s constitutional right or Mrs. Timmerman’s spousal testimonial privilege?…