NO Plaguarism

wr UNIT TwO lthe Connercial Envircnment revierving it Belore April 30. Crilou, shLxr.ed Wrights propertv to l\4ichael Ballwayt Lcss than six rnonLhs larer- alter the agreelrcnt I'rarl expirecl but r,vitl'rrn the protcLLLr)n period-Ballway' bought thc pr.opcr-t1i Criiorv lilecl a suit rgair-ist Wnght in ar-r Ohio statc coLlrt scekir-rg a comnrissillrt on the sale. Did the parties cor-ltract include the protecr-iorr penod provision? Does nght or.ve Crilou- a commissron? Explain. [Crilon, r W?r.qht, _ Ohio App.3d, _N E 2d - (5 Dist 2011)l O*3 Case Problem with Sample Answer. Licensing ,EIj Statutes. PE\15 Co. lnternational. Inc.. agreed to hnd a bu1-er for Rupp Industries, inc. A commission of 2 percent of rhe purchase price r,vas to be paid b1, the bu1'er. PEN4S analvzed Rupps operational ancl flnanci:rl conditions, palcl legal fees. carefull,v managed Rnpps conli- cientral ciata, trncl screened more than a dozen potential buvers. LJsing PEIVISs sen'ites, ;ln rnVusUIurlt SloLtp that becanre Rupp lnclustries Accprisrtron, Inc. (RIA), acquu-ccl kel inlblrnation abouL Rupp and bought the cornpanr' [or $20 million. RIA changed Rultps name to Ter.np-Arr, lnc No one paid PElt4Ss commission. PElr4S flled a sllrl r11 ;l Nlinnesota state collrt against Temp-Air, alleging breach ol contracL. Temp Air responcled that PE\4S hacl been aerrng as a broker in the transactron nithout having obtained a brokers license. Thus, because state Lau, required a broker to har.e a license, PEMS u,as barred liom maintaining this suit. PEMS argued that it had acted not as a broker but as a "finder." The applicable statute defines a broker as an).per- son rvho deals uith the sale ol a business. What determrncs n'hethel a contract u,rtl-r an unlicensecl person is enforce- ablel\ssuming that the st.ltute ln this case u,as intencled t,-r protect the public. can PENlS collecL tts commissionl Explain. IPEMS Q). Intcrntrtiontrl, /nr.. r.r It'nrp-Arr, lnt... _ N.\i2cl _ (Mir.rn ,\Pp 201I)l -To view a sample answer for Case Problem 9-7, go to Appendix F at the end o[ this text. Consideration. Ir.r lr,{arch 1997, Leonarcl Kranzler loanecl Lervts Saltzman S 100,000. SaLtzrnan sigr-rec1 a rvdtten memo that stated, "Lotrned to Lervis Saltzman $100,000 to be paid back rvith interest." Saltzman rnade lifteer-L pavments on rhe loan. but these patments did not co\.er the entrre amount. The last pa)/ment rvas made in Juli 2005 In June 2007- more than ten vears alter the date of rhe loan but less than t\'o vears after the date ol the last payment-Kranzler filed a suit in an llllnols state coLln :rgainst Saltzman, seeking r,- recLrver the outstanclir-rg princlpal ancl interest. Saitzrnan aclmrttecl that he had borror.r'ecl rhe lirncls arrcl hacl macle pa\ments tln thc loan, but he chilDed thlrt Krlrnzlers ctti.r'i pLrint u,as barrccl b1' a 1en-\'eiir stzrtr-rtc ol lrrnitltions. Docs Kranzler need to prove a new promise with new consid- eration to coliect the unpaid debt? Explain. lY'ranTler v. Saltzman,347 711.Dec.519,942 N.E 2d 722 (t Dist.2011)l 9-9. I A Question of Ethics. Promissory Estoppel. Claudia lEl i e..r.r obtainedaloanof $B45,000tobuy ahome inLos Angeles, CaliJornia. Less than two years into the loan, Aceyes couldno longer alJordthe monthly payments.IJ.S. Banh, which held her mortgage, declared her in default and notified her that it planned to foreclose onlter home. (Foreclosure is a process that allows a lender to repossess and sell the property that secures a lom.) Aceves fled Jor banhruptcy. Filing a peti- tion inbanhruptcJ automatically stays, or suspends, dny action by a mortgagee (ender) against the debtor. Acettes hoped to set up a new, alfordable schedule oJ paymmts. On l"earning of the filing, U.S. Banh olJered to modrfy Aceyes's mortgage if she w ould forgo banhruptcy. In reliance on that promise, she allow ed the banhruptcy court to lift the automatic stay. Once the stay wasliJted, thebanh didnotworhwith Aceves to modify her Loan. Instead, it Joreclosed on her home and initiated eyiction proceed- ings. She filed a lawsuit in a CaliJornia state court against the banh, alleginga cause oJ actionJor promissory estoppel. fAceves v U.S. Bank, N.A., 192 Cal.App.4th218,120 Cal.Rptr.3d507 (2 Dist. 2011)l l. Is Aceves likely to succeed in her claim of promissory estoppel? Why or why not? How does this theory relate to the ethical principies discussed in Chapter 2? 2, Did either the borrower or the lender-or both-behave unethically in the circumstances of this case? Explaln. 9-10. r=l Video Question.lock's Restouronl Scene 2. [H] a.."s the vrdeo using the instructiors provided below to answer the following questions. l. In regard to the sale olJacks Restaurant, Jack (the seller) said that he was going to retain the rights to the resiau- rant's frozen food line. The buyers, however, thought that their sales agreement included the rights to aii of the restaurant's signature dishes-whether fresh or fro- zen. Did the parties have an "agreement to agree" on the terms of the sale of the restaurant? Why or why not? 2. Suppose that Jack had previously oflered to sell the restaurant to these particular buyers and they had all agreed on the pnce and date for delivery Would such an offer meet the definiteness requirement, even if no terms pertained to the frozen food line? Explain. -To watch this video, go to $nr$ffren8ag$l:lin,({}m and reg- ister the access code that came with your new book or 1og in to your existing account.. Select the hnk for either the "Business faw Digrul Video Library Onfine Access" or "Business l-aw CourseMate," and then click on "Complete Video List" to find the video for this chapter (Yideo 77). 9-1.

9-8.