Homework Clinic
Social Science Clinic => Business => Topic started by: erika on Jun 24, 2018
-
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires large companies with publicly traded stock to:
a. have the CEO personally certify the company's financial reports to the SEC
b. file all litigation in federal court, not state court
c. provide the SEC with a report of all insider trades by company managers
d. have the CEO personally certify the company's financial reports to the SEC and file all litigation in federal court, not state court
e. have the CEO personally certify the company's financial reports to the SEC and file all litigation in federal court, not state court and provide the SEC with a report of all insider trades by company managers
Question 2
Oral Contracts. Samuel DaGrossa and others were planning to open a restaurant. At some point prior to August 1985, DaGrossa orally agreed with Philippe LaJaunie that LaJaunie, in exchange for his contribution in designing, renovating, and managing the restaurant, could purchase a one-third interest in the restaurant's stock if the restaurant was profitable in its first year of operations. The restaurant opened in March 1986, and a few weeks later, LaJaunie's employment was terminated. LaJaunie brought an action to enforce the stock-purchase agreement. Is the agreement enforceable? Why or why not?
-
Answer to Question 1
a
Answer to Question 2
Oral contracts
The issue centers on whether the alleged contract could possibly be performed within one year. If the contract could not be performed within one year, then it would have to be in writing to be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds. The court had little difficulty in determining that the contract could not possibly have been performed within one year's time. The asserted oral agreement had been reached at some point prior to August 1985, and LaJaunie was not to be entitled to purchase the interest in the restaurant, if at all, until the renovations were completed and the restaurant had been operating for one full year. The contract was, by its terms, incapable of being performed within one year of its making, and therefore enforcement of the oral contract was barred by the Statute of Frauds.
-
Correct answers!
-
Great! Please up vote :D