Business law international tours

Mercedes Connolly and her husband purchased airline tickets and a tour package for a tour to South Africa from Judy Samuelson, a travel agent doing business as International Tours of Manhattan. Samuelson sold tickets for a variety of airline companies and tour operators, including African Adventurers, which was the tour operator for the Connollys’ tour. Mercedes and injured her left ankle and foot. She sued Samuelson for damages. Is Samuelson liable? Connolly alleged that the International Tours and Samuelson were negligent in failing to advise her that a walking tour was part of the tour. She was injured when she slipped on a rock.

She alleged that they failed to provide her with a safe tour. The tourist further contended that they acted as common carriers and owed her the highest duty of care at the time of her injury. She also alleged a breach of contract and implied warranty. Samuelson is not liable for the damages. A tort, in common law jurisdictions, is a civil wrong, then the company and Samuelson could have been liable. Samuelson was not negligent in selling the tour package to the Connollys. Samuleson obligation was to provide transportation services, not to ensure that the Connollys weren’t injured once arriving to their destination.

When the tourist was injured, she was not being carried by them. The fall off of a slippery rock was the type of event that occurred in the absence of negligence. Further, there was no breach of duty in failing to warn her of a known hazardous condition, and the brochure exculpating them from any liability was plain evidence that they undertook no warranty or guarantee of her safety on the trip. 30. 8 Ray Johnson and his eight-year-old son, David, were waiting for a “walk” sign before crossing a street in downtown Salt Lake City.

A truck owned by Newspaper Agency Corporation (NAC) and operated by its employee, Donald Rogers, crossed the intersection and jumped the curb, killing David and injuring Ray. Before reporting for work on the evening of the accident, Rogers had consumed approximately seven alcoholic mixed drinks. Evidence showed that the use of alcohol and marijuana was widespread at NAC and that the company made no effort to curtail such use. Evidence further showed that NAC vehicles were returned with beer cans in them and that on one occasion, an NAC supervisor who had observed drivers smoking marijuana had told the drivers to “do it on the road. Ray Johnson sued Rogers and NAC for the wrongful death of his child, David, and physical injury to Ray. Is NAC liable? There is no question that Donald jumped a curb killing Ray and injuring David. Donald was carless and caused harm to both Ray and David. So when asked the question is NAC liable, the answer is yes. Management within NAC was aware of Donald’s use of alcohol and drugs while on the job. NAC could have potentially avoided this situation if Donald had been disciplined or fired when beer cans were found in his company truck or when a supervisor witnessed Donald smoking marijuana.

NAC is liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. Respondeat superior is a legal doctrine, most commonly used in tort that holds an employer or principal legally responsible for the wrongful acts of an employee or agent, if such act occur within the scope of the employment or agency. When the accident occurred, Donald reported for work and was driving NAC’s truck. Therefore, he was acting within the scope of his employment which makes the company liable. Donald was negligent and could also be held liable. 34. 7

Pat McGowan, Val Somers, and Brent Robertson were general partners of Vermont Place, a limited partnership formed for the purpose of constructing duplexes on an undeveloped tract of land in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The general partners appointed McGowan and his company, Advance Development Corporation, to develop the project, including contracting with materials people, mechanics, and other suppliers. Eventually, Somers and Robertson discovered that McGowan had not been paying the suppliers. They removed McGowan from the partnership and took over the project. The suppliers sued the partnership to recover the money owed them.

The partnership assets were not sufficient to pay all their claims. So the question is who is liable to the suppliers? Where the partners of a real estate development partnership charged one of the partners and his company with the responsibility of developing the real estate, they effectively made him and his company agents of the partnership. Applying the provisions of the Uniform Partnership Act to the case at bar, when the partners of Vermont Place charged McGowan and his company, Advance, with the responsibility of developing Vermont Place, they effectively made McGowan and Advance agents of the partnership.

Under the law of partnership, all partners were jointly and severally liable for the debts, because the acts of one partner, acting within the apparent scope of his authority, bound the entire partnership. The court found that the trial court did not clearly err in determining that the mechanic’s liens, held by the suppliers, were inferior to the construction mortgages perfected by the banks. The mortgages were recorded prior to the commencement of the construction of the improvements on each project site, so they were prior to the suppliers’ liens, relating to construction materials obtained thereafter.

Further, the mortgages were valid under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 51-605, because the aggregate sum requirement in the mortgage satisfied the requirement that the mortgage record the banks’ obligation to advance money. However, several of the liens were invalid because the liens were not timely filed under Ark. Stat. Ann. § 51-613. 35. 7 The Aztec Petroleum Corporation (Aztec) was the general partner of a limited partnership. The partnership agreement provided that it could be amended by a vote of 70 percent of the limited partnership units.

More than 70 percent of these units voted to amend the partnership agreement to provide that a vote of 70 percent of the limited partnership units could remove the general partner and replace it with another general partner. Prior to this amendment, there had been no provision for the removal and substitution of a general partner. Texas law requires unanimous approval of new partners unless the partnership agreement provides otherwise. When a vote was held, more than 70 percent of the limited partnership units voted to remove Aztec as the general partner and replace it with the MHM Company.

Aztec challenged its removal. So who wins? By an amendment to a limited partnership agreement by a majority of the limited partners, Aztec (general partner) was replaced by MHM (current general partner), but Aztec refused to step aside. The Texas Uniform Partnership Act does not prohibit the removal and substitution of a general partner in a limited partnership, even though the partnership agreement initially did not directly allow such action, if the partnership agreement provided a method for amendment and an amendment permitting substitution and removal of a general partner was adopted.

The amendment of the agreement did not violate contract law or the agreement itself because the parties to the agreement agreed it could be amended by a certain procedure and that procedure was followed. Neither the Texas Uniform Partnership Act nor the Texas Uniform Limited Partnership Act prohibited substitution of a general partner in a limited partnership if the partnership agreement provided for amendment and an amendment permitting substitution of a general partner was adopted. Therefore MHM Company wins and replaces Aztec.

Posted in Uncategorized