NO Plaguarism

cHAPfEn wlsnatl Bustness orgonlzotions the rent \4erkur paid to HRf, rvhich meant that Merkur prolrted from the arangement. Rusen and Thomas clid not tell Hon'ath about thc subleases. When Honath lear-rtecl o[ the cleals, he filed a sutt in a MichLgan st2lle couri ag.illlst HRT and the other partners for an accountlng of their actlons. Did Rusen and Thomas breach therr fiduciary duty to HRT and Horr.ath? Discuss. lHorvath tt HRT EnteiTrlses, N W2d (2011)l T4-7. ,rE Case Problem with Sample Answer. Management of iEIlr an LLC' James Williford, Patricia Mosser, Marquetta - Smirh and Michael Flovd formed tw'o member- managed limired liabillt1. co-pn.ti.r-Bluer,vate r Bay LLC, ancl Blucuater Logrstics, LLC (collectivel,v Bluervater)-rn N,lississippi to bicl on contrrlcts relate.l to the altermath of' Hurricane Katrina. Under Nlississippi larv', everl'member o1' a member-managed LLC is entitled to parlicipate in manrg- ing the business. Under Bluervater's operating agreements, '':i 7i9u Super \'lajoritl,Vote ol the members" could recleem anl membe ls interest il the 'ntember hirs erther committecl a [eloni Lrr Lrnder any other circLttrstance s Lhat rvoulcl .jeop- ardise the .Lrmpany sLatus" as a con[ractor. Blues'ater had completed more lhan $5 million in contracts rthen Smith told il1ilord that he was "fired" ancl that she. \losser, and Floi'ci n'ere erercistt'tg their "super majoritl" right to bu1' him out. No reason u,as proviclecl. Willlforcl ftlecl ;r suit in a lr,lississippi state courl against Blueu'ater and the other members. u,ho then told \'illilord rhat ther had changed their minds about bupng htm out but rhat he ri as still fired. Dicl Sn'rith. \ltrsse r. and F1o)'d breach the state LLC statute, their llclucrrn cluties. or the Blueri'ater operaLing agrcc- mentsl Drscuss. lBluavakr Logistic-s, LLC v. WilliJord, 55 So.3d 148 tNiiss. 201 I)l -To view a sample answer for Case Problem l4-7, go to Appendix F at the end o[ this text. i4-:i. The Franchise Contract. Kubota -lrrrctol C-or 1t. rnakes farm, rndusLnal. r1n.l rrlrLclLlor ecluiptr-tent. lts {ranchise contracts allori Kubota iLr enter into cLealership agreements lvilh "olhers at anr' 1ocation. Ke.1:ar \lotors. lnc.. is a Kubota dealer in Nacogdoches ancl Ja-sper. Teras. These t*'o Kejzar s[ores operitte as one clealership riith iu'o lr]c:lt1.I'ls. Kubota grantecl a clealership to Michael Hammet in Luiktn. ferirs. r'ihich lies betrveen Kejzars lwo siore Locattons. Ke.i:ar filed a suit rn a Texas state court againsr Kubota. Kelzat asked for an injunctton to prevent Kubora from locating a derlersl-rrp in the satre market area. Kejzar argued thar the neri Lr.iruan u'oulcl carLsc it to suller a signthcant loss ol profits. 1-uch party. in a franchise relarronship r;'pically determines the territory sen-ed bv a lranchlsee? Which 1egal principles come into plaf in this area? Horv clo these concepts most hkely apply in rhis case? Disct-tss. IKr'l:rrr lfutors, Inc. v. KubttLaTrttcLor Cttrp..ll+ S.W3d 151 (Ter.App -T1,ler 201 1)l !4*t *:k A Question of Ethics. Wrongful Dissociation. Elhot ffi willrn'hv and Bevtrly MLtran t'umed a Ttartnership to - rfn,rirt[. antl 'lltp" (resell) sonrc propctty. Accordingto thtir agrrcment, Moran wouk).financt Lit pLuthasc and rentt' vation oJ the property, dnd Willenslty would prot'tde lctbor and oversighr oJ the reno^tation worh. Moran wotLLdbe reimbursed .from the pro.ftts o.f the sale , and the remainder oJ the profts wottlcl be tlit,ided et,tnly. Any losses would also bt dwided cvcnl\,r Mrrr rtn paid $240,00A .f ttr a houst tutcl plcuutt cl to spcntl $60,000 for its renotaLion. Thc parLics agrced that Lhe renova' tion *-oulcl be completed in sa months. Wiilcnsk-v lived in the house dr.u'ing the renovation. More than ayear late4 tht project srill rvas not complercd, and the cost was much more than Lhe $tr0,000 or.iginall_v plonnt,d. Willenshy ofttn farlccl r() .on']nlu nirate rlith llttron, utd v,hen she learne d th,:tt htr .ft.nds wtrt nect.lv e-thaLtsre d and the howe nctwhere near ccmpletion, she becante tt'orrkd. She told Willensfu, thathe tvotLldhave to puy rent and Lirilitl bills if hc rt'rshed ta cantinue kr live in the house. Shortly rhoecrlio; Willenslt-y ltft .[or Floricltt tlut to d lamily cmcrtu"Lcy, sayinS thnl he wrtuld rclL.r'n .l- soon as hc cttuld. Hc neyer returned, howerer, and Mttrort lost toLLch tvith him. Mordl1 tool?. over the pro.iect and discovere d tl-Lat'J, illenshy had le.ft ntuntrous bills unpaid, spent money on e-tcessit'e or unnec- .s-s.iil itr'nr-s. tutcl ntisappropritkd.ftLnds for hi.s pcrsonal use. A./1e r.conrplitinr thr: proic.t, pu.yLngc'll cxlr.r1.scs rrlatrng to fhe r.cnoration iin all, thc renovatton.osts cdnlc to 5311,222), and -sclling thr propertJ, Moran brought dt1 (tction in a Tennessee sr.rte .oui-r to di.ssolve the parLnership and Lo recover dantages fr.onr \'illensir-y .for breach o.f contracL rtnd u,ronglLrl disso.larion fr.onr rht partne r.ship. /Moran r'. Willensky: - 5.1\':3d - (Tem.Ct.App 2010)l l. \loran alleged that Willensky had rvrongfully dissoci- ated from the partnershrp. When drd this drssociarion occur? Why was his dissociation r,vrongful? !. Which of Willenskys actions simply represent unethi- cal behavior or bad management, and which constitute a breach of the agreement? Criticl-Thinking Legal Environment Qudion. Jordan Mendelson rs interestecl in starring a kjtchen fran- chise busrness. Customers n.ill ctrme to the busi ness to assemble gourmet clinncrs ancl then tal