2023 Your responses should be well rounded and analytical and should not just provide a | Assignments Online

Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice.

 

It is important that you incorporate the question into your response (i.e., restate the question in your introduction) and explain the legal principle(s) or concept(s) from the text that underlies your judgment.

 

For each question, you should provide at least one reference in APA format (in-text citations and references as described in detail in the Syllabus. Each answer should be double spaced in 12-point font, and your response to each question should be between 300 and 1,000 words in length.

 

Submit this assignment as a single Word document covering both cases.

 

Note: Please be sure you refer to the numbers that appear on the printed pages in your electronic readings, not the numbers that appear with the navigation icons.

 

29.1 Creation of an Agency Renaldo, Inc., doing business as Baker Street, owned and operated a nightclub in Georgia. On the evening in question, plaintiff Ginn became “silly drunk” at the nightclub and was asked by several patrons and the manager to leave the premises. The police were called, and Ginn left the premises. When Ginn realized that his jacket was still in the nightclub, he attempted to reenter the premises. He was met at the door by the manager, who refused him admittance. When Ginn persisted, an unidentified patron, without the approval of the manager, pushed Ginn, who lost his balance and fell backward. To break his fall, Ginn put his hand against the door jamb. The unidentified patron slammed the door on Ginn’s hand and held it shut for several minutes. Ginn, who suffered severe injuries to his right hand, sued the nightclub for damages. Is the unidentified patron an agent of the nightclub? Ginn v. Renaldo, Inc., 183 Ga.App. 618, 359 S.E.2d 390, Web 1987 Ga.App. Lexis 2023 (Court of Appeals of Georgia)

 

37.1 Shareholders’ Meeting Ocilla Industries, Inc. (Ocilla), owned 40 percent of the stock of Direct Action Marketing, Inc. (Direct Action). Direct Action was a New York corporation that specialized in the marketing of products through billing inserts. Ocilla helped place Howard Katz and Joseph Esposito on Direct Action’s five-member board of directors. A dispute between Ocilla and the two directors caused Ocilla to claim that Katz and Esposito wanted excess remuneration in exchange for leaving the board at the end of their terms. As a result, no shareholders’ meeting was held for one and one-half years. Under the Model Business Corporations Act, can Ocilla compel Direct Action to hold the meeting earlier? Ocilla Industries, Inc. v. Katz, 677 F.Supp. 1291, Web 1987 U.S. Dist. Lexis 12741 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York)