legal environment for managers, management homework help

User Generated

yrbpncevpba

Business Finance

Description

Post your answers to questions 18-3, and 19-7.

NOTE

1)please check the PLAGIARISM

2)assignment should be 2000 words

3)citations and references should be in a APA format

4)below I drop the question file


Unformatted Attachment Preview

Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner Scanned by CamScanner
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

Running head: CASE ANALYSIS 18-3 &19-71

Case Analysis 18-3 & 19-7
Student’s Name
Institution’s Name
Date

CASE ANALYSIS 18-3 &19-72
Case Analysis 18-3 & 19-7
18–3. Limited Partnership
General partners owe their partnership a duty of care as well as a duty of loyalty and a
compulsion to discharge their roles in a reasonable belief and good faith that they are acting in
the best interest of the partnership. Normally, general partners owe their co-partners such as the
highest fiduciary duty, limited partners, in large quantity since the general partner's control and
manage the business. In partnership, a member may have duties of trust, referred as fiduciary
duties, based on the form of partnership as well as the nature of the partner role in that business.
The fiduciary duties of every partner will differ based on whether one is participating in the
limited or general partnership and if he is a limited or general partner in the business. Judicial
precedent, state statutory law, as well as the terms of the given partnership agreement will further
establish what fiduciary duties, he owned to others in limited or general partnership. Possessing
fiduciary duties are more associated with greater legal liability for a partner who breaches this
legal trust (Miller, 2017).
In this case, Carpenter was the general partner charged with the duty of managing and
controlling the Stonelake limited partnership and thus owed McBeth, the limited partner of the
business, the highest fiduciary duty. Carpenter violated this duty by perverting the connotation of
the row with the city over water rights, by paying $800,000 of McBeth to Austin Estates without
informing her as well as collaborating with other investors without McBeth to sell and buy
property that was the objective of the partnership. The carpenter breached his fiduciary to
McBeth and should pay McBeth damages including interest. General partners owe their business
an obligation of care and obligation of dependability. In addition, owes their organization a
promise to release their obligation in line with basic honesty as well as in a functional principle

CASE ANALYSIS 18-3 &19-73
that they are acting the best interest of the partnership. General partners their partners, such as
the highest fiduciary obligation, constrainer partners, in a larger measure based on the general
partners manage and control the business (Miller, 2017).
Mcbeth should be awarded compensatory damages including lost profit and out of pocket
damages. However, the lost profit is not supported by validly enough evidence or proof and
petitioner should be denied the motion to enter judgment for such damages. Besides, any
defendant’s motion to dismiss the case should be declined. The Fifth Circuit Texas law states
that such destructions need to be created with reasonable certainty.
Despite the fact that the litigants made a benefit on the property purchase and sale, that
exchange varied from the exchange in which Reynolds and McBeth were to have taken an
interes...


Anonymous
Excellent! Definitely coming back for more study materials.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags