2) I labelled all the blog posts with vocabulary “Vocabulary – Wortschatz” so you can find them easily.
3) Read the next five cases; try to read all the remainder of the book during vacation — it should be fun! Be curious! We will certainly reach page 122 during the next lecture, so be sure to have read the cases up to and including WILKES v. SPRINGSIDE NURSING HOME, INC. 353 N.E.2d 657, 370 Mass. 842 (1976).
4) Here is a model question:
Widgets, Inc. is a corporation, chartered in New York. It has 2 million shares authorized, and issued 1 million shares of common stock at 1 dollar per share. Each common share has 1 vote. It has 1000 shares of preferred stock which issue a dividend of 1000 dollars per share and are non-voting. Widgets It has debts of 1 million dollars.<
Widgets wishes to outsource manufacture of its products. To do so it enters into a partnership with Bobbits, an LL.C., as a limited partner. Bobbits hires Craneco, S.A., a South American corporation to build a factory for it. Bobbits also hires SimCo, LL.P., a management consultant to run its operations in the South American factory. SimCo hires contract laborers. The contract labor is badly paid, unhappy, and often shows up to work late or drunk, resulting in pay being docked. At a labor strike on site Jorge lights a match to smoke a cigarette. Dangerous chemicals explode. SimCo claims the accident is Jorge’s fault and was deliberate sabotage.
Manolo, represented by Humanitas, a human rights advocacy group, is a worker at the factory in South America. Humanitas, on behalf of Manolo sues Widgets, Bobbits, Craneco, and SimCo in the U.S. Federal Court, Southern District, New York. What result?
—
How to answer it?
First, spot the legal issues.
Then write the outline of your answer answer, issue by issue: IRAC – issue rule application conclusion
Leave enough space to fill in the outline. You right your answer into the outline!
We will talk about this case when we get back.