Adam and Beth form A&B, LLC, a limited liability company (LLC). One advantage of an LLC is that it may be taxed as
a non-profit entity.
X, Y, and Z fast-food burger chains have a secret meeting in Captain Tony’s Bar in Key West where they all agree to divide up the Keys into three geographic territories – upper, middle, lower including Key West – each to receive an exclusive territory, and where they also promise not to compete with each other in their respective territories. This agreement is:
Legal if they can demonstrate that it is good for the consumer since the companies will now be able to compete more effectively against other fast-food businesses, especially Subway, which now has surpassed McDonald’s in the number of worldwide outlets, and KFC.
Legal as long as the territorial division is a fair one and there was no fraud or mistake present in the transaction.
Illegal pursuant to the Per Se doctrine of anti-trust law.
Legal pursuant to the Rule of Reason doctrine of anti-trust law.
Best Office Company promises to pay Carl $1,000 to repair the roof on Best’s building. Carl fixes the roof. The act of fixing the roof
imposes a moral obligation on Best to pay Carl.
imposes no obligation on Best unless it is personally satisfied with the job.
is not sufficient consideration because it is not goods or money.
is the consideration that creates Best’s obligation to pay Carl.
Susan and her neighbors who live in an older, working-class neighborhood had their homes seized by the city pursuant to eminent domain since the city wants to turn the property over to a big private developer who plans to build a mall, thereby increasing the tax base of the city. Susan and her neighbors have been evicted; but they are promised “fair market value” for their homes. However, they want to stay in their homes. They sue the city for acting in an unconstitutional manner. The likely result of that lawsuit would be:
Susan and her neighbors will win since the city seized their properties merely for a mall and not something major like an airport extension.
Susan and her neighbors will win because the city did not use the properties itself but turned them over to a private developer.
Susan and her neighbors will win since under the old common law, “An Englishman’s home is his castle,” and thus government cannot constitutionally seize private property.
Susan and her neighbors will lose, assuming they receive fair market value for their properties, since the city acted in a constitutional manner.
Ann gives Bill the distinct impression that Carol is Ann’s agent, when in fact she is not. Bill deals with Carol as Ann’s agent. Regarding any agency relation¬ship, Ann
can deny it.
can deny it to the extent of any injury suffered by Bill.
can deny it to the extent of any liability that might be imposed on Ann.
cannot deny it.
Yard Work, Inc., makes and sells garden tools. Under the strict liability doctrine, a tool could be unreasonably dangerous and defective
only if, in making the tool, Yard Work failed to use a less dangerous but economically feasible alternative.
only if the tool is dangerous beyond the ordinary consumer’s expectation.
if, in making the tool, Yard Work failed to use a less dangerous but economically and practically feasible alternative.
none of the above.
American Sales Company and B2C Corporation enter into a contract over the Internet. The contract says nothing about the UETA. The UETA applies to
none of the contract.
only the part of the contract that does not involve computer information.
only the part of the contract that involves computer information.
the entire contract.
Allie, an adult, is injured while using a very sharp kitchen knife manufactured by Fearless Cutting to prepare a dinner. The knife is manufactured according to Fearless’ product standards. There is an adequate handle for the knife, a sheath to enclose the knife, but no warning on the box, sheath, or knife itself that the knife is very sharp. Allie sues Fearless pursuant to the doctrine of strict liability, contending that the knife is a defective product. The likely result of such a lawsuit would be:
a. Fearless loses since it is deemed to be an insurer of an ultra-hazardous product which caused harm to a consumer.
b. Fearless loses since there was no warning on the product that the knife was sharp and could cut.
c. Fearless loses since the knife was a flawed product.
d. Allie loses since the product was not defective and a reasonable person should have been aware of the risk of being cut by a knife.