Liability Partnership Amendments to the Uniform Partnership - 1375 Words

Liability Partnership Amendments to the Uniform Partnership (Coursework Sample) Content: TORTS LAWNAME OF STUDENTTUTORS NAMECOURSE TITLEINSTITUTIONS NAMEDATECASE 1Every business aims at expanding and making extra profit every day. Thats why its wise to look for the best business legal structure that will suit your business. In this case, the sole proprietor wants to involve his/her friends and family members in his business with an aim of expanding the same. Despite the fact that they have confidence with his /her business, they give excuses that they are too busy to partner with him, as well; they dont want to be liable for the debts in case the business went bankrupt.Choosing a structure that would suit their claims and putting their needs perfectly is also wise. The best business legal structure would be a limited liability partnership since it has embedded all their specifications in it; 1 Only the designated partners have the extra liabilities: in this case, I will be the designated partner who will be responsible for running all the business process es. 2 Members in a limited liability partnership are not liable for debts. Their liabilities are limited to only what they invest in the business. 3 Responsibilities and share of profits are done as per limited liabilities partnership agreement. 4 Each members pays tax depending on the profit share. 5 Limited liability partnership is flexible in character. Each member has equal ability to decide on how much they want to invest in the business.Getting a limited liability partnership to operate requires that members participate in making rules and agreements on how they want the business will run. The partners also have a role of choosing the best business name and at least have two designated members who will take all the responsibilities of the business. Having set the rules and agreements, there is the need to register the partnership with the right legal bodies. With this, I would be able to convince the family members to join me in the business, with a major obligation of finding another designated member from the family or any other person who will be willing to join me in the same. With such a structure, they would easily find it favorable to join me in the partnership.Ref: Bishop, C. G. (1997). The Limited Liability Partnership Amendments to the Uniform Partnership Act (1994). Business Lawyer, 53, 1001.Case 2The CEO acts independently of the corporation he works for when he plays loud music and punches his neighbor. Therefore, the neighbor should file a lawsuit against the CEO. As we can see, the CEO commits two crimes; one, he plays loud music disturbing the neighbor which is considered as a breach of peace. The CEO jeopardizes the neighbors rights to tranquility and peace through extended loud music even after the neighbor fairly warns him. Second, the CEO commits an assault against his neighbor by punching him. The neighbor has a right to file a lawsuit despite of the situation of the company that the CEO works in. The companys current condition does not give the CEO any right to violating any law.Ref: 1 Avvocom. (2016). Avvocom. Retrieved 5 October, 2016, from /legal-answers/what-is-the-penalty-for-assulting-punching-someone 2 Loo, T. (2007). Disturbing the peace: environmental change and the scales of justice on a northern river. Environmental history, 12(4), 895-919Case 3A board of directors is the pivotal mechanism used for monitoring managers in a business. The directors have a responsibility to protecting the business interests. Besides their legal obligations of reviewing the business major plans and actions, they are charged with evaluating, selecting, compensating and appropriately dismissing top managers.According to a research on Fortune 500 CEO-Director selection, evidence shows that where a CEO is involved in director selection, the new directors have a biased decision making since they want to prove their loyalty to the CEO. In this case, we have family members whose ties with the CEO are even stronger. The CEO has a right to selecting the board of members, even if it implies his close friends or family members as the CEO has to work closely with the board of directors to optimize performance. However, a good choice has to be made since the directors have to build a good working relationship with the CEO.The choice that the CEO makes by selecting four of his family members implies that he has an upper hand while making any choice or in case of a disagreement. Having a 50% say even before a vote is cast is not just. The CEO, even though he has a right to select any member of the board, should come up with a criterion that helps in selecting a board of directors who are fit for the board. Some characteristics that the directors should have include; skills, diversity, integrity and moral responsibility, capacity to evaluate strategies and reach sound conclusions, and more importantly, being able to set aside time to devote themselves for the roles as directors. With all these, whether they are family members, friends or any person, the casting of votes would be fair and no oppression would prevail.REF: 1 Shivdasani, A., Yermack, D. (1999). CEO involvement in the selection of new board members: An empirical analysis. The Journal of Finance, 54(5), 1829-1853. 2 Case 4This is neither intentional nor unintentional tort. An intentional tort is an act that is committed with an intention of harming another, or by deliberately interfering with personal rights to emotional tranquility, bodily safety, control over property, privacy, freedom from confinement, and freedom from deception. Intent is key to proving that a person has committed an intentional tort since the plaintiff has to prove to the court that the defendant acted intentionally to cause harm. In this scenario, I have not committed an intentional tort since the plaintiff did not suffer any kind of injury or violation of rights. I had given him a helmet that was a bit old which implies that only a short period had passe d without noticing. Product liability would have placed me in a position of negligence. However, though it did not meet the ordinary expectations of my customer, it did not bring any harm to my customer. For a tort to be considered unintentional, it has to meet the following three specific elements for a plaintiff to claim negligence. * The defendant must owe a service or have a duty towards the plaintiff * The defendant must have violate a promise, failed that duty or obligation to the victim * The victim must have suffered actual injury, loss or damages directly caused by the defenda...