1. The four shareholders of Delta, Inc., want to prevent each other from selling the shares to third parties without first being given the opportunity to buy them. The shareholders can provide for this in
a buy-sell agreement that includes a “take-along” clause.
a buy-sell agreement that includes a right of first refusal.
a key-person clause that specifies who can sell what to whom.
none of the above.
2. Home Interiors, Inc. (HII), tells Jan, whose business is purchasing for others, to select and buy $200 worth of certain goods and ship them to HII’s office. Jan buys the goods from Brand Name Products Store and ships them as di¬rected, keeping an account for the expense in HII’s name. HII and Jan
do not have an agency relationship, because Jan’s business is buying for others.
do not have an agency relationship, because Jan did not indicate that she was acting for Baron.
do not have an agency relationship, because their agreement is not in writing.
have an agency relationship.
3. Miriam, a smart and sharp MBA student, is on spring break flying home to see her family. At the airport, there is the usual delay. So, Miriam goes to the nearest airport bar to have a glass of wine. At a table near the bar are some nicely dressed business executives who clearly have had too much to drink and are talking very loudly and annoyingly – but about the merger of their company with a bigger company and how much of the big company’s stock they are going to receive in return for their shares for the purchase of their company. Miriam puts down her glass of wine and notes on the cocktail napkin the name of the companies. When she gets home, she immediately calls her broker and tells him to buy shares of stock in the executives’ company. The merger takes place and Miriam makes a great deal of money on the transaction. Miriam likely has acted:
Illegally since she traded on inside information.
Illegally since the business executives probably breached a duty of confidentiality.
Illegally since her stock purchase was not a fair one, and as a business student Miriam “should have known better.”
Legally since she was lucky, smart, and bold.
4. ABC, Inc., orally contracts for a lease of its storage facilities to DEF Company. DEF pays part of the price, takes possession, and makes permanent improvements to the property. The contract is most likely enforceable against
ABC and DEF.
neither ABC nor DEF.
5. Jay is charged with the commission of a crime. For a conviction, the standard to find Jay guilty is
beyond all doubt.
beyond a reasonable doubt.
clear and convincing evidence.
a preponderance of the evidence.
6. Big Oil Company wants to adopt an English-only policy for its employees working on its oil rigs. The policy applies only when the employees are actually working on the rig, and not while they are on break or otherwise on their own personal time. This policy is:
Legal if the company can demonstrate a legitimate business reason for the policy, such as safety concerns.
Legal if the employer gives it employees a reasonable amount of time to adopt and to conform to the new policy.
Legal if the employer teaches any of its non-English speaking employees to speak English.
All of the above.
7. Gil sends a letter to Holly in which he falsely accuses her of embezzling. This is defamation if the letter is read by
a public figure.
any third person.
only Holly’s employer or a potential employer.
8. Paul hires Janice, a college student, as a cash register employee at his sporting goods store. A vendor, Vinnie, comes in to sell Paul some office supplies. Yet Paul is very busy dealing with a unhappy customer. The vendor is insistent, however. So Paul turns to the vendor, and, pointing to Janice, says: “See my agent. She will take care of the order.” Whereupon, Janice deals with Vinnie, and then Janice in a writing commits to buy a large amount of office supplies from Vinnie Vendor for Paul. Paul claims that he is not liable for the order because Janice was not his agent and “just a college kid.” The likely result of any lawsuit between Paul and Vinnie will be:
Paul will prevail since Janice was merely an employee who had no express authority to act as an agent.
Vinnie will prevail if he can convince a jury that Paul granted apparent agency authority to Janice by his words and conduct toward Vinnie and that Vinnie reasonably believed that Janice was Paul’s agent.
Paul will prevail if Janice was a minor.
Paul will prevail if he can convince a jury that Vinnie’s grandfather was once a member of the Gambino Organized Crime Family of NYC.