Week 7 Assignment


Week 7 Assignment
Assignment Instructions

Prepare answers to the following cases from this week’s reading.
• Case 29.1: Creation of an Agency on pages 498
• Case 37.7: Piercing the Corporate Veil on page 636
Your responses should be well-rounded and analytical, and should not just provide a conclusion or an opinion without explaining the reason for the choice.
It is important that you incorporate the question into your response (i.e., restate the question in your introduction) and explain the legal principle(s)

or concept(s) from the text that underlies your judgment.
For each question, you should provide at least one reference in APA format (in-text citations and references as described in detail in the Syllabus. Each

answer should be double spaced in 12-point font

• Case 29.1: Creation of an Agency on pages 498
29.1 Creation of an Agency Renaldo, Inc., doing business as Baker Street, owned and operated a nightclub in Georgia. On the evening in question, plaintiff

Ginn became “silly drunk” at the nightclub and was asked by several patrons and the manager to leave the premises. The police were called, and Ginn left

the premises. When Ginn realized that his jacket was still in the nightclub, he attempted to reenter the premises. He was met at the door by the manager,

who refused him admittance. When Ginn persisted, an unidentified patron, without the approval of the manager, pushed Ginn, who lost his balance and fell

backward. To break his fall, Ginn put his hand against the door jamb. The unidentified patron slammed the door on Ginn’s hand and held it shut for several

minutes. Ginn, who suffered severe injuries to his right hand, sued the nightclub for damages. Is the unidentified patron an agent of the nightclub? Ginn

v. Renaldo, Inc., 183 Ga.App. 618, 359 S.E.2d 390, Web 1987 Ga.App. Lexis 2023 (Court of Appeals of Georgia)

• Case 37.7: Piercing the Corporate Veil on page 636
37.7 Piercing the Corporate Veil M.R. Watters was the majority shareholder of several closely held corporations, including Wildhorn Ranch, Inc. (Wildhorn).

All these businesses were run out of Watters’s home in Rocky Ford, Colorado. Wildhorn operated a resort called the Wildhorn Ranch Resort in Teller County,

Colorado. Although Watters claimed that the ranch was owned by the corporation, the deed for the property listed Watters as the owner. Watters paid little

attention to corporate formalities, holding corporate meetings at his house, never taking minutes of those meetings, and paying the debts of one

corporation with the assets of another. During August 1986, two guests of Wildhorn Ranch Resort drowned while operating a paddleboat at the ranch. The

family of the deceased guests sued for damages. Is Watters personally liable? Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F.Supp. 1442, Web 1988 U.S. Dist. Lexis

15701 (United States Di
strict Court for the District of Columbia)