If you had been the manager of GECC in charge of the I USL account, what would you have done once the typo was discovered? Is Prudential legally entitled to a $92,885.000;first mortgage? What would be the ethical thing to do?;Attachment Preview;Legal Issues For Managers Chapter 7 Question 8 Page 250.PDF;U NIT II;T HE L EGAL E NVIRONMENT;[Land v. Metropolitan Insurance Co., 564 A.2d 972 (Pa.;Sapa-Q.1989).];Sawyer, a former friend and unpaid assistant to;.-- ~ -T.e M ills, r er-iuded M ills to file a;i lawsuit on behalf of 431 f en-phen users who;dirt pill had damaged their hearts. Accord a conversation that Sawyer had secretly recorded.;agreed to pay her SI million, plus 565,000 for a;* cat. a series of payments over a t en-year period, if;class-action lawsuit "obtained a big pay day." Sawyer;the bonus was modeled after the one received;: -.'- '-- -.- -."..:' -._ legri ^ >: > t a n t m ade;fjuiutts by the 2000 movie of the same name starring;Julia Roberts. Mills negotiated a controversial $200 million settlement, pursuant to which he received a $23.6;million fee. Mills paid Sawyer S160rOOO but refused to;pay any additional amounts, and Sawyer filed a lawsuit;to recover the remaining 5900.000 she claimed he owed;her. What arguments will Sawyer make to support her;claim against Mills? What arguments can Mills make;in his defense? [Ky. Courts: Sawyer v. Mills Pleadings;Statute of Frauds and JNOV, Ky. L Rev., April 27, 2006;available at http://www.kentuckylawblog.com/2006/04/;news_fayette_ju.html.];6.;Hydrotech Systems, Ltd., a New York corporation, agreed;to sell wave-pool equipment to Oasis Waterpark, an amusement park in Palm Springs, California. Although Hydrotech;was not licensed to install such equipment in California, it;agreed to install the wave-pool equipment after Oasis promised to arrange for a California-licensed contractor to "work;with" Hydrotech on any construction.;The contract between Hydrotech and Oasis called for;Oasis to withhold a specific portion of the contract price;pending satisfactory operation of the wave pool. Although;the pool functioned properly after installation, Oasis continued to withhold payment for both the equipment and;the installation services.;Section 7031 of the California Business and Professions Code states that a suit may not be brought in a;California court to recover compensation for any act or;contract that requires a California contractor's license;unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that he or she was;duly licensed at all times during the performance.;Can Hydrotech recover its compensation due under the;contract? Does Hydrotech have a valid action against Oasis;for fraud? Is it ethical for Oasis to use the California law to;defend itself? [Hydrotech Systems, Ltd. v. Oasis Waterpark;803 P.2d 370 (Cal. 1991).];7.;Tractebel Energy Marketing, a power plant designer and];builder, wanted to build a power plant. Environmenulj;Protection Agency regulations required new power planted;offset the anticipated increase in overall emissions by pnr-1;chasing emission reduction credits. Companies acquired;these credits by installing better technology in existing!;plants or shutting down existing operations. Through a bro-;ker, DuPont entered into a contract to sell 1,000 tons of nitro-;gen oxides emission credits to Tractebel. Shortly thereafter;however, the New Jersey Department of Environmental;Protection revoked DuPont's credits, citing new regulations. When DuPont refused to perform the contract, Tract-.;ebel sued for breach. What arguments will DuPont claim;in its defense? Who will prevail in this action? [Tractebel;Energy Marketing, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont DeNemours & Co.;118 S.W.3d 60 (Tex. App.-Houston 2003).];As lawyers assembled closing documents for a refinancing of some of the o utstanding debt of United States;Lines (USL), a secretary working on "Amendment No.;1 to the First Preferred Ship Mortgage" omitted three;zeros from the number representing USL's outstanding;indebtedness to Prudential Insurance. As a result, the;document showed the a mount of Prudential's first mortgage as "$92,855.00" instead of "$92,885,000.00." No-;one noticed the error u ntil eight months later when USL;defaulted on the notes secured by the amended mortgage;and w ent bankrupt.;When Prudential tried to foreclose its $92,885,000 first;mortgage, USL's bankruptcy trustee objected, arguing that;the mortgage should be limited to 592,885. In addition;General Electric Capital Corporation (GECC), w hich had;lent money to USL secured by a second mortgage, brought;suit for a declaration that Prudential's first mortgage was;valid only to the extent of $92,855. Because GECC had;lent money to USL secured by a mortgage junior to that to;Prudential, GECC stood to gain by r educing the value of;Prudential's first mortgage.;GECC had been intimately involved in USL's financing;for some years and knew that Pnidential had a 592,885.000;first mortgage. Neither GECC nor any other c redi;USL asserted that it had relied on erroneous information;about the amount of USL's outstanding debt.;If you had been the manager of GECC in charge of the i;USL account, what would you have done once the typo was;discovered? Is Prudential legally entitled to a $92,885.000;first mortgage? What would be the ethical thing to do? [See;Andrew Kull, Zero-Based Morality: The Case of the $31;Million Typo, 1 Bus. L. TODAY 11 (July-Aug. 1992).];For Internet resources, please visit our website at;www.cengage.com/blaw/bagley.
Paper#34239 | Written in 18-Jul-2015Price : $34