Reference no: EM133192034

Question 1. Alex plays for Saint Mary's varsity basketball team. She broke her leg when a player on the other basketball team crashed into her leg when Alex was taking a jump shot. Alex's lawyer assessed Alex's damages as $10,000 for lost income, $1,000 for physiotherapy, and $2,500 for pain and suffering.
But when the judgetold Alex that she "voluntarily assumed the risk of getting injured" she didn't know what that meant.Please explain to Alex what that means and how it effects her total damages calculated to be $13,500.

For full points you must say she gets nothing/$0 damages + that she knew there was a risk of being injured and engaged in the sport anyway.

Question 2. Because of the coronavirus pandemic Saint Mary's University emailed all the professors and staff and told them that they were not allowed to go into their offices and any buildings on the SMU campus until further notice. However, Professor Wade used his access card to enter the back door of the Sobey Building to go to his office to get some papers. Campus Security saw him on a video camera. They went to his office and took him by the arm and removed him from the building.
What intentional tort did Professor Wade commit? Explain your answer.

Trespass to land. On the property without permission or consent withdrawn.

Question 3. Dr Oz hosts a weekly television show devoted to giving advice about healthy living. On one show he told his television viewers that the real secret to a good life was to eat two spiders every day for one week each year. When Kim who watched the show ate her first spider she had an allergic reaction and could not work for one week. She sued Dr Oz for giving negligent advice and not warning her of the dangers of eating spiders.
The judge who heard the case dismissed it saying that there was not sufficient proximity between Dr Oz and Kim and therefore Dr Oz did not owe Kim a duty of care.
Explain why the judge would say this.

Not a good enough connection between Kim and Dr Ozbecausehe is not his patient, was not giving advice directly to her. He doesn't know her medical history, simply part of a TV audience etc.(For full points you have to answer because...)

Question 4. Billy Schnare, a partner of Accurate Accounting, LLP specializes in tax accounting.
Zero Industries Ltd hired him to give them advice on how to reduce their taxes. Zero Industries followed Billy Schnare's advice. Later that year they received a letter from the Canada Revenue Agency (the government agency responsible for taxation in Canada) stating that their tax avoidance scheme was illegal, that they had to pay an additional $200,000 in taxes, a $25,000 penalty for tax evasion, and 15% interest on the $200,000 amount they owed.
Zero Industries Ltd is thinking about suing Billy Schnare for negligence. They want to know whether Billy Schnare breached the standard of care? Did he? Why/Why not?

Did he do what a reasonable accountant would do? No. A reasonable accountant would give advice that was illegal. (For full points you have to state the test and apply it to the situation.)

Question 5. What type of situations are punitive damages awarded for in a tort case?

Where the person committed a tort and does something reallybad/knew the situation was dangerous and did nothing, etc. and the judge wants to punish the offender and/or deter others.

Question 6. Michael Crosby's dream was to be a chef. The first thing he did when he graduated from the Community College was to register his new catering business as a sole proprietorship. His first job was to prepare all the food for a birthday party. Unfortunately he left the cold meats out in the hot sun. Everyone at the party got food poisoning and each person was unable to work for three days. Michael was confident he would not have to pay any damages for negligence out of his own savings because his business was registered as a sole proprietorship. Is he correct? Why/Why not?

He is personally liable for all things because he is a Sole Proprietor.

Question 7. Susan and Billy registered as partners in a house building business. Susan thought they needed a new truck for moving building materials. Without consulting Billy about purchasing a truck for the business Susan bought a new truck and paid for it with a cheque drawn on their partnership bank account. Billy was furious he was not consulted and told Susan she should pay for the truck with her own money.
Susan told Billy they were partners and that she (Susan) had the legal right to buy the truck using the partnership's money. Is Susan correct? Why/Why not?

She can do this without his permission. She can act as an agent for the partnership. And the truck is for the business. She did not breach any fiduciary duty.

Question 8. Three people formed, and registered, a limited partnership (LP) to carry on a fish selling business (Two General Partners, One Limited Partner). The name of the limited partner was part of the registration documents. To celebrate the end of their first year in business, they went on a hunting trip together. The truck in which the three were travelling crashed on the way to their destination. There was only one survivor who was the limited partner.
A creditor who had not been paid by the business obtained a court order stating that the LP must repay the creditor $30,000. Upon hearing of the death of the two general partners, the creditor wanted to recover the $30,000 from the surviving limited partner's personal assets.
Is the creditor correct? Will the creditor be successful? Why/Why not?

Limited partner won't have to pay. It was registered, Name of limited partner was registered. etc.

Question 9. What is the key difference between the voting rights of owners of common shares of a company and the voting rights of owners of membership shares of a cooperative?

Common share: 1 vote per share. A person can own more than one share
Membership Share: 1 vote per member. A person can only have one membership share.

Question 10. How do the shares of a cooperative help foster and promote the aims, principles, and values of cooperatives?

For instance, Everyone/each member has one vote so this promotes equity democracy. (Simply stating the values of a coop does not explain how the shares promote those values.)

Question 11. Both a corporation and a cooperative are said to be a legal person, having a separate legal existence. Explain what that means.

They can do anything a person can do...buy land, hire employees, make contracts, and so on.
A company is a separate entity distinct from its shareholders, employees, directors, officers.

Question 12. Andre worked as President for East Coast Fish & Shellfish Exporters Ltd. who sold fish and shellfish throughout the world. He thought there was an excellent business opportunity to export seafood to Spain, and a chance to make some extra money for himself. So one evening at home Andre bought 1,000 pounds of lobsters over the telephone with his own money and made all the arrangements to have them exported. When the Board of Directors of East Coast Fish & Seafood Exporters Ltd. heard of the sale they immediately terminated Andre's employment. Andre believed that he did not do anything wrong because he used his own money and bought and sold the lobster on his own time.
Would the Board of Directors of East Coast Fish Exporters Ltd. be justified in ending Andre's employment? Why/why not?

Yes, breach of his fiduciary duty to the company. Conflict of interest. He is competing against the company he runs.

Question 13. El Paso Inc hired Goldman Sachs Corp to advise it whether to split into two companies or to sell the company (El Paso Inc) to Kinder Morgan Corp.
Goldman Sachs Corp owns 20 per cent of the shares of Kinder Morgan Corp (worth about US$4 billion) and has two seats on its board.
What is the problem with this situation? How would you recommend it be solved?

Conflict of Interest - Goldman Sachs is hired by El Paso to give it good advice. But Goldman Sachs has a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of Kinder Morgan. So its advice could be biased. Get someone else to advise El Paso.

Question 14. Wally and Barry are equal shareholders of Walbar Ltd, and both are officers and directors of Walbar Ltd, which operates a pool hall. There are several pool tables in the establishment, but one table in particular is not used very often by patrons. Wally decided to take it home and set it up in his basement. When Barry objected, Wally replied, "Look, it's my company too. Because I own half the pool tables I have a legal right to take the pool table home if I want to."
Is Wally correct? Can he take the pool table home? Does he own one-half (0.5) of the pool tables? Why/why not?

The company owns half the tables. Not him. He cannot simply take the table home.

Question 15. Typecast LP. is comprised of Live Magazine Inc which is the general partner, and several limited partners including Mahnaz.
Mahnaz is also the sole shareholder and president of Live Magazine Inc. In his capacity as President of Live Magazine Inc, Mahnaz is the manager of Typecast LP.
On behalf of Typecast LP Mahnaz signed a contract with Clear Graphics Ltd to provide printing services worth $50,000 to Clear Graphics Ltd.
Clear Graphics Ltd paid Typecast LP $50,000 but Typecast LP did not do any of the work they promised. Clear Graphics Ltd got a court order saying that Typecast LP must pay $50,000 to them (Clear Graphics Ltd).
Unfortunately, Clear Graphics Ltd discovered that neither Typecast LP nor its general partner Live Magazine Inc has any assests.
Can Clear Graphics recover the $50,000 from Mahnaz? Why/why not?

Simple Superficial Answer for full points:
As a limited partner. No because of limited liability of limited partners.
As a shareholder. No because of limited liability of limited partners.

This actually is a tricky question - What complicates this situation is that as a limited partner he is acting like a general partner managing the LP. So perhaps that negates his protection as a limited partner. Also he is the sole shareholder of a company that seems to be doing something fraudulent and relying on limited liablity as a shareholder to protect himself from liability. The courts will not protect sole shareholders of companies if that is the case.