english summary question

Ana, Bob and Cal were the sole directors and sole shareholders of Feet, Inc., a closely heldNew York corporation which owned and operated retail shoe stores. Ana, Bob, and Cal eachowned 75 shares in the company. On January 2, 2002, Ana, Bob and Cal signed a writtenshareholders†agreement which provided in pertinent part:Upon the death of any shareholder, Feet, Inc. shall, within sixty (60) days of receipt of awritten demand from a duly appointed estate representative, purchase the shares of thedeceased shareholder for $1,000 per share.When the agreement was signed, the three directors orally agreed that the buy backprovision would apply only if the corporation was making a profit.In addition to being a director of Feet, Inc., Ana was also a licensed real estate broker andthe sole director and shareholder of Anaâ€s Realty, Ltd., a New York corporation. In June2007, the directors of Feet, Inc., with Ana participating, voted to enter into a contract withAnaâ€s Realty, Ltd. Prior to the vote, Ana disclosed to Bob and Cal that she was the soleshareholder and director of Anaâ€s Realty, Ltd. The vote was two to one with Cal votingagainst the contract. The written contract provided that if Anaâ€s Realty, Ltd. located a storefor Feet Inc. to purchase, Anaâ€s Realty, Ltd. would receive the customary commission of sixper cent (6%) of the sales price when title closed. Ana soon found a desirable store at afavorable price, and in October 2007, Feet, Inc. purchased it.In November 2007, Ana sent a written purchase order to Sal, the president of Shoe Co., andordered 2,000 pairs of boots, to be delivered to the new store on or about December 1, 2007.The terms of the purchase order called for payment in full upon delivery.On December 1, 2007, Shoe Co. delivered 2,000 pairs of running shoes to Feet, Inc.â€s newstore. Ana immediately had the shoes placed in an unlocked storage shed on Feet, Inc.â€sproperty and notified Sal that she was rejecting the shoes. Sal told Ana that the shoes wouldbe picked up within the week. However, three days later the shoes were stolen, and Sal toldAna that he was holding Feet, Inc. responsible for the loss of the shoes.Cal died in December 2007. On February 1, 2008, Executor was duly appointed as theexecutor of Calâ€s estate. Executor gave Ana and Bob a written demand that Feet, Inc.purchase Calâ€s shares of stock pursuant to the written shareholders†agreement. Bob theninformed Executor that Feet Inc. had not made a profit for the past three years, andtherefore, the corporation would not buy back Calâ€s shares. Executor has confirmed thatFeet, Inc. has not made a profit for the past three years.(a) Is Feet, Inc. liable to Shoe Co. for the loss of the running shoes?(b) Was the contract between Feet, Inc. and Anaâ€s Realty, Ltd. voidable?(c) Is evidence of the oral agreement admissible in an action by Executor to enforce FeetInc.â€s obligation to purchase Calâ€s shares of stock under the written shareholders’agreement?
Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount! Use Discount Code “Newclient” for a 15% Discount!NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

The post english summary question appeared first on Nursing Writers Hub.

"Is this question part of your assignment? We will write the assignment for you. click order now and get up to 40% Discount"