Corporate Status. Cecil Hill was in the construction trade. He ...

[misspop]

Corporate Status. Cecil Hill was in the construction trade. He did business as C&M Builders, Inc, although there was no such corporation. County Concrete Co supplied C&M Builders, Inc with over 50,000 worth of concrete for which it was not paid. The supplier filed a suit in a Maryland state court against Hill personally. Hill argued that because the supplier thought it was doing business with a corporate entity, C&M was a de facto corporation, and thus Hill was not personally liable. Should Hill be allowed to avoid liability on this basis? Why or why not?

Question 2

Agencies may be terminated by operation of law, without either party taking any action.
 a. True
  b. False
  Indicate whether the statement is true or false

[mceravolo]

Answer to Question 1

Corporate status
The court ruled in favor of the supplier, and Hill appealed. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment in the supplier's favor. The appellate court emphasized that the supplier was misled as to the entity with which it was doing business. The court concluded that Hill, by doing business under a wrong name, was not acting in good faith. The court held that this prevented Hill from asserting that C&M Builders, Inc. was a de facto corporation. Thus, Hill could not avoid liability on the supplier's claim.

Answer to Question 2

TRUE

[misspop]

Gracias!

[dreamfighter72]

Thanks for the timely response, appreciate it