Fabulous Fitness for Life ("FFL") is a partnership comprised of four partners. This partnership owns and operates a fitness center/gym. Partner A is at a trade show and sees a great deal on a set of workout equipment. Without consulting the other 3 partners, Partner A signs on the dotted line for FFL to purchase the equipment for $40,000 with payment due 30 days after delivery. When the equipment arrives the following week, Partner A is the
only partner on-site. Thrilled with his new purchase, he signs the required paperwork and takes delivery of the equipment. When the $40,000 bill arrives the following month, Partner B (who handles the finances) immediately calls a meeting of the partners to find out what's going on. Partner A apologizes that he forgot to let them know about the new equipment purchase and tells them how pleased the customers are with the equipment upgrade. Unfortunately, FFL is on shaky financial ground and
simply does not have the $40,000 to pay for this new equipment. In fact, it will likely have to close the business shortly for lack of funds.
If the equipment supplier sues for payment of the $40,000, is the partnership liable for this payment? Are the individual partners liable for this payment? If so, is each partner's personal liability limited to $10,000? Explain.
Java Joint, Inc. is a Delaware corporation owned by four brothers. The corporation owns a
coffee shop in West Haven, Connecticut called Java Joint. To save money, the brothers handled the incorporation of Java Joint, Inc. by themselves without using a lawyer. They filed the Certificate of Incorporation with the Delaware Secretary of State and paid the necessary filing fees to form Java Joint, Inc. However, they have not adopted any organizational documents for the corporation, they have not elected directors of the corporation and they haven't appointed any officers. To save money on
bank fees, they use one of the brother's personal bank account for the business. Lois Lender made a $10,000 loan to the corporation which is now in default. (The shareholders did not personally guarantee this loan.) The total balance due on the loan including unpaid interest is $13,500. In addition to suing the corporation, Lois is also suing each of the four brothers individually.
Under these circumstances, which of the following is true?
There are four designated groups in Canada that have not received equitable treatment in employment: (1) women, (2) Aboriginal peoples, (3) people with disabilities; and (4) visible minorities.
(1) Women tend to be concentrated in occupations that are accorded lower status and pay. (2) Many Aboriginal workers are concentrated in low-paying, unstable employment. (3) The unemployment rate for employable people with
disabilities is much higher than the national unemployment rate. People with disabilities face attitudinal barriers, physical demands that are unrelated to actual job requirements, and inadequate access to technical- and human-support systems that would make productive employment possible. (4) Visible minority groups vary in their labour force profiles; however, studies have shown that Latin Americans and Southeast Asians experience lower-than-average incomes, higher rates of unemployment, and
reduced access to job interviews, even when they have the same qualifications as other candidates. Culturally biased aptitude tests, lack of recognition of foreign credentials, and excessively high language requirements pose systemic barriers for visible minority groups.
Individuals under federal jurisdiction have the right to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) if they feel they have been discriminated against on any of the prohibited grounds. The complainant must first complete a written report describing the discriminatory action. A CHRC representative reviews the facts and determines if the claim is legitimate. Once a complaint has been accepted by the CHRC, an investigator is assigned to the case in order to gather more facts, from both the complainant and the accused. The investigator submits a report to the CHRC, recommending a finding of either substantiation or non-substantiation of the allegation. If the allegation is substantiated, a settlement may be arranged in the course of the investigation. If the parties are unable to reach agreement, a human rights tribunal consisting of up to three members may be appointed to further investigate the complaint. If the tribunal finds that a discriminatory practice did take place, it may order the person or organization responsible to compensate the victim. Any person who obstructs an investigation or a tribunal, or fails to comply with the terms of a settlement, can be fined and/or jailed.
Provincial human rights laws are enforced in a very similar manner. Individuals who feel they have been discriminated against on any of the prohibited grounds file a written complaint with the applicable human rights commission, which then investigates the claim. The majority of cases are resolved at the investigation stage. If agreement cannot be reached, the case is presented to the province's human rights commission. The members of the commission study the evidence and then submit a report to the minister in charge of administering the human rights legislation. The minister may appoint an independent board of inquiry, which has similar powers to a federal tribunal. Failure to comply with the remedies prescribed by the board of inquiry may result in prosecution in provincial court.