1. 1-800-Got-Junk is a junk removal franchise based out of Canada. In 2003, Got Junk entered a franchise agreement with Tash-It. The agreement stated that the franchisee, Trash-It, would pay a percentage of its gross revenue to Got Junk for every junk removal job it performs. In 2010, Got Junk terminated Trash-It's franchise on the grounds that Trash-It deliberately had not reported certain jobs and the gross revenue from those jobs. Was Got Junk right in terminating the agreement? Why or why not?

2. How is an ultra vires act related to a corporation's power?

3. Oil Dawg, an oil tanker company, shipped oil to coasts all over the US. During many deliveries, the crew was dumping waste into the ocean. To conceal this, the crew falsified entries into the record book and lied to the Coast Guard about waste disposal. Top executives in the company were unaware this was happening. A jury convicted Oil Dawg of conspiracy, pollution, and obstruction of justice and the company was fined $4.9 Million. Oil Dawg appealed. Should Oil Dawg be found criminally liable for the illegal actions of its lower-level employees under the doctrine of respondeat superior? Why or Why not?

All case studies must be 1-2 pages in length and must be supported by material from the textbook. When taking material from the text you must cite it properly using APA 6th ed. format. It is recommended that you paraphrase what you take from the textbook and cite it properly. Your response must also include one outside source to support your reasoning.

Follow this format when completing each case study

1. Introduction Paragraph (summary of the case)

2. You must answer every question at the end of each case study.

3. Conclude your case study with your personal reaction to the case study and a Christian perspective.

4. Your answers must be supported by using the textbook and at least one outside resource retrieved from the Pontious Library Database.

5. You must conform to the APA format when citing information from the text or any other sources.

Case #8
Allison Seizer has a very wealthy father, entrepreneur Warren Seizer of “Chimichonga Chime” restaurant fame, although her family pedigree was not what attracted Blake Patterson to his girlfriend of three years; instead, it was “love at first sight.” Blake proposes to Allison, and the two are married with the blessing of Warren Seizer.

Warren wants the best for his daughter and son-in-law, so he offers a “Chimichonga Chime” franchise to Blake, with a prime location in the center of the Elmwood business district. After one year, it is clear that the newest “Chimichonga Chime” is and will be a tremendous business success. In fact, sales, revenue and profit goals for the restaurant are shattered in its first year of operation, and Blake would like to think that his “hands-on” ownership and operation of the restaurant was an important part of the store’s success.

Unfortunately, the couple’s relationship has suffered over the year, and the term “irreconciliable differences” creeps into marriage conversations. Blake asks for his freedom, and Allison obliges. Wedding bells have been replaced by divorce attorneys.

Warren Seizer is furious. He is firmly convinced that Blake Patterson is to blame for the marriage’s dissolution, because there is no conceivable way (at least in his mind) that his “darling angel,” his “precious daughter,” could be responsible for the divorce. The creative genius behind “Chimichonga Chime” plots justice for his daughter and himself, although some may call it revenge.

On September 1, Warren Seizer personally delivers a Notice of Termination of Franchise to Blake Patterson. The document states that Patterson’s franchise agreement has been terminated for cause, and that he must either close the restaurant, or cease and desist from using the name “Chimichonga Chime,” advertising the franchise chime logo, and selling all franchise-related products, within 30 days.

1. Who wins: The “ex-father-in-law,” or the “ex-son-in-law?”
2. What is your decision based on?

Case #9
Clyde Monett has been operating an art restoration business since 2010, specializing in the refurbishment of portraits and paintings. He operated the enterprise as a sole proprietorship (called Monett’s Art Restoration Services) until 2012 when he attended a “Business Structures, Licenses and Permits” workshop at the local community college, at which time the presenting attorney suggested he convert his business to a corporation, in order to “shield” Monett’s personal property and real estate from liability for his business’ financial obligations (Monett’s personal net worth is approximately $150,000.) Through the incorporation process, the only change to the business name was the addition of the word “Incorporated.” Monett was the only incorporator of the business. He serves as the president, vice-president and treasurer of the corporation; his sister, Georgette O’Keeffe, is the secretary. Since the corporation was formed in 2012, Clyde and Georgette have only convened one “official” corporate meeting; the meeting lasted approximately one hour, and the two shared family gossip for forty-five minutes of that hour. Monett’s Art Restoration Services, Incorporated has maintained an average daily balance of $45.22 in the corporate checking account at Homeland National Bank.

Yesterday, Monett inadvertently purchased the wrong art refurbishment materials (the cleaning solution was too acidic,) and the oversight resulted in irreparable damage to a painting conservatively valued at $75,000. The owner of the painting, Paul Picasso, demands $75,000 in damages from Monett; Monett apologizes, offers two free coupons for future restoration services, and refuses to pay the $75,000. The current corporate checking account balance is $52.84.

1. Is Clyde Monett personally liable for the $75,000 damage claim?
2. Is he ethically obligated to pay Paul $75,000?

1. 1-800-Got-Junk is a junk removal franchise based out of Canada....