Sole Proprietorship, Partnership Agreement, Tort Liability, and Liability of Franchisee

Business law
Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Critical legal thinking-Bank of America, N. A. v. Barr
Barr a sole proprietor owned Stone scene and paid part of a $ 100, 000 loan but then stopped paying and the Bank of America, which took over Fleet Bank, which originally approved a loan, sued Barr for the remaining loan repayment. A sole proprietor is a business where there is no distinct legal separation between the business and the owner. The sole proprietor is held personally responsible for incurring debts regardless of whether the business operates under a fictitious trade name (Miller & Jentz, 2014). Barr did not act ethically for refusing to pay the debt, since there is no legal existence of the business, and he was liable for all liabilities and debt. Since the sole proprietorship does not have a separate identity, the profit and loss are filed by the owner.
Law case with answers -Kemmler Memorial Foundation v. Mitchell
Clifford Davis and William Mitchell entered into a partnership agreement to deal in rental properties. The two purchased a rental property from Kemmler Memorial Foundation and Davis wrote a promissory note to pay, without informing the foundation that the two had agreed he would be the only one liable in case of default (Cheeseman, 2013). The Supreme Court of Ohio decision was that both partners were jointly liable since each one of them was an agent of the partnership while executing instruments, while the foundation had no knowledge on any arrangement on joint liability. Since partners are agents of the partnership they are liable for the obligations. Davis and Mitchell merely entered into a side agreement, but the partners would have notified the foundation that only Davis was liable and not Mitchell.
Critical legal thinking case
Tort Liability
in the case Hayes V. Tarbenson, Thatcher, McGrath, Treadwell & Shoemaker, Thomas McGrath a law firm partner went to a restaurant cocktail and talked about work related issues util11 P.P. McGrath had consumed alcohol and got into an argument with Hayes a bar patron, they two later met outside the bar and McGrath shot Hayes who sued McGrath and the law firm. McGraw was liable or damages and not the law firm since he was not conducting business at the time he shot Hayes. At the same time, McGraw was negligent having already been drunk, but there is also a need to understand triggered altercation was. The employer can be held responsible or the actions of employees while conducting business, but the time he shot Hayes he was not conducting business.
Liability of a Franchisee - CISLAW v. SOUTHLAND CORP