Sole Proprietorship Business and Uniform Limited Partnership Act - Coursework Example

?Questions Set b The case involves a disco shop that sells a variety of products, both cheap and expensive. Its sales agents work on commission and are paid 20 percent for sale of an expensive item and only two percent for sale of each of the cheap items. This induces sales agents to sell more of expensive items and earns the shop more profit. The issue for determination is whether the commission strategy is an unlawful bait and switch. Bait and switch defines advertisement of an item at a low price, in order to attract a customer to sales location, followed by attempts to influence the customer to another product. Bait and switch becomes unlawful when the seller is not able to or declines to offer the advertised commodity to the buyer, does not avail required quantity of the commodity to the customer, or fails to deliver or commit to deliver the commodity within a reasonable time after an order is placed. In the case however, there is no sale of goods scenario between the shop and the sales personnel and no advertisement at a low price with the aim inducing the other party to a more expensive product. Further, the commission rate does not relate to customers. The situation, therefore, does not identify an unlawful bait and switch (Emerson 253). Set 2- b The case involves a college scenario in which a worker discovered money during a mass clean up. The college offered lockers to students but decided to do a clean up before changing its allocation arrangement for efficient record keeping. Students were asked to clear their property from their respective lockers but cleaners found some things, mainly old and discarded items, in the lockers. While cleaning, Frank, one of the workers, discovered a small paper bag and found cash amounting to $ 10000 in bills. The college has demanded for the money while frank claims right over the cash and it is believed that the cash could be related to drug sales. The matter to be determined in the case is potential issues for identifying the party with a right over the money and involves whether the money is lost, mislaid, or abandoned property, and the difference between the concepts. The concept of lost property is identifiable and offers a solution to the rightful owner of the money. A property is termed lost if the owner “negligently, carelessly, or inadvertently leaves it” at a place (Cheeseman 792). In the case, the owner of the cash, presumably a student, was negligent because the institution adviced students to clear all their property from the lockers. Even though owners of some lockers could not be identified, the school is not the owner because it did not know of the property’s existence and could have removed it of notified cleaners of its existence. The concept of lost property that confers ownership rights to whoever discovers a lost property. The money is therefore a lost property and Frank gains ownership (Cheeseman 792). Set 3- a Jake and Kate are members of a limited liability company that is member managed. Jake is a member of a three-person management team while Kate is not. The two are however actively involved in the management and entered into a contract on behalf of the company, each placing $ 1000 as deposit but the management team refused to ratify the contract. Members of a limited liability company have rights and obligations of the members. As a member of the management team, Jake has a right to operate and create contracts on behalf of the company while Kate has no right to engage in any activity on behalf of the company. The two members however have rights to be indemnified for payments made on behalf of the company. Both members have obligations to be loyal to the company, and to ensure duty of care to the company. In addition, Jake had an obligation to perform fiduciary duties (Cheeseman 662-665). Set 4- a Lorna operates a sole proprietorship business but the enterprise has a separate name, telephone numbers, and account number. She operates the business as a separate entity from her personal life and has stated that the business be treated as such upon her death. The business is however unincorporated and this identifies unlimited liability to Lorna. The lack of incorporation means that the enterprise operates as a sole proprietorship and the separate administration and the will does not shield Lorna’s assets from the enterprise’s liabilities. Lorna has therefore not insulated her personal assets from business losses (Cheeseman 662). Set 5- b Mary contracted to purchase a used tractor $ 12000 on warranty that the tractor’s engine had worked for 11000 hours. The engine had however worked for 2500 hours reducing its value from $ 14000, had it worked for 1100 hours, to $9000. Mary discovers the discrepancy after additional 450-hour usage that reduced the tractor’s value to $ 7500. The issue to be determined is the amount that May can recover under breach of warranty claim. The uniform commercial code grants a buyer right to compensation for losses due to non-conforming goods that the buyer accepts. Having accepted the tractor, Mary can recover loss due to difference in the engine’s working hours, $ 3000, and loss due to subsequent damages before discovery of the discrepancy (Cheeseman 336). Set 6- a Lisa is a limited partner and is part of the management team of the member management organization. Certificate for the partnership was filed with the wrong office, parties that deal with the company are not sure of its status, and Lisa’s type of partnership and Lisa’s liabilities for partnership debts is the issue for determination. The revised uniform limited partnership act provides that a limited partnership come into existence upon filing of its certificate with the secretary of state. The enterprise did not however file its certificate with the relevant office. It is therefore not a limited partnership. All its partners, including Lisa, therefore have limited liabilities like members of a normal partnership. Lisa’s involvement in management in management would also induce liability parties who believe he is a general partner to the enterprise (Cheeseman 583- 587). Works cited Cheeseman, Henry. Business law: Legal environment, online commerce, business ethics, and international issues. London, UK: Pearson, 2013. Print. Emerson, Robert. Business law. New York, NY: Barron's Educational Series, 2009. Print. Read More