Mercedes Connolly and her husband bought airline tickets and a tour package for a trip to South Africa from Judy Samuelson, who is a travel agent operating as International Tours of Manhattan. Samuelson sold tickets for various airlines and tour operators, including African Adventurers, which was the tour operator for the Connollys’ trip. Mercedes injured her left ankle and foot. She filed a lawsuit against Samuelson for compensation. Is Samuelson responsible? Connolly claimed that International Tours and Samuelson were negligent in not informing her that the tour included a walking component. She slipped on a rock and got injured.
She claimed that they did not ensure her safety during the tour. The tourist also argued that they acted as common carriers and had a high level of responsibility for her well-being when she was injured. She also accused them of breaking the contract and implying a warranty. However, Samuelson is not responsible for the damages. In common law jurisdictions, a tort is a civil wrongdoing, so both the company and Samuelson could have been held accountable. However, Samuelson was not at fault for selling the tour package to the Connollys. Their obligation was to provide transportation services, not to guarantee the Connollys’ safety upon arrival at their destination.
The tourist was not being carried by them when she was injured. The fall from a slippery rock happened without any negligence. Additionally, there was no breach of duty in not warning her about a known dangerous condition. The brochure that absolved them from any responsibility was clear proof that they did not promise or guarantee her safety during the trip. 30.8 Ray Johnson and his eight-year-old son, David, were waiting for a “walk” sign before crossing a street in downtown Salt Lake City.
A truck owned by Newspaper Agency Corporation (NAC) and driven by employee Donald Rogers struck and killed David and injured Ray after crossing an intersection and hopping a curb. Prior to the accident, Rogers had consumed approximately seven alcoholic mixed drinks. Evidence presented indicated widespread use of alcohol and marijuana at NAC, with no attempts by the company to control such behavior. Additionally, it was found that NAC vehicles were often returned with beer cans inside, and on one occasion, a supervisor instructed drivers who were smoking marijuana to do so while on the road. Ray Johnson filed a lawsuit against Rogers and NAC, seeking compensation for the wrongful death of his son David and his own physical injuries. The liability of NAC is evident in this case, as Rogers’ recklessness caused harm to both Ray and David. The management of NAC was aware of Rogers’ substance abuse while on duty, potentially preventing the situation if he had been disciplined or terminated when beer cans were discovered in his company truck or when a supervisor witnessed him smoking marijuana.
NAC can be held responsible under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which is a legal principle used in tort law. Respondeat superior holds an employer or principal legally accountable for the wrongful actions of an employee or agent, if those actions occur within the scope of their employment or agency. In this case, Donald was driving NAC’s truck when the accident happened and he reported for work, indicating that he was acting within the scope of his employment. Therefore, the company is liable. Additionally, Donald’s negligence makes him potentially liable as well. 34. 7
Pat McGowan, Val Somers, and Brent Robertson, who were general partners of Vermont Place, a limited partnership created to build duplexes on an undeveloped piece of land in Fort Smith, Arkansas, appointed McGowan and his company, Advance Development Corporation, to handle the project’s development tasks. This included dealing with materials people, mechanics, and other suppliers. At some point, Somers and Robertson discovered that McGowan hadn’t been paying the suppliers. They ousted McGowan from the partnership and assumed control of the project. Consequently, the suppliers filed a lawsuit against the partnership in order to reclaim the money owed to them.
The partnership assets were not enough to satisfy all the claims, resulting in the issue of who is responsible to the suppliers. In a scenario where the partners of a real estate development partnership appointed one partner and his company as accountable for the development of the real estate, they effectively designated him and his company as agents of the partnership. By applying the relevant provisions of the Uniform Partnership Act, when the partners of Vermont Place charged McGowan and Advance with the duty of developing Vermont Place, they essentially made McGowan and Advance agents of the partnership.
According to partnership laws, all partners are responsible for the debts incurred by one partner, as long as they were acting within their authority. Therefore, the entire partnership is bound by the actions of one partner. The court concluded that the trial court was correct in determining that the banks’ construction mortgages took priority over the suppliers’ mechanic’s liens. This is because the mortgages were recorded before construction began, giving them priority over the liens associated with materials acquired later on.
Additionally, the mortgages met the criteria outlined in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 51-605, as the total amount specified in the mortgages fulfilled the banks’ requirement to advance funds. Nevertheless, some of the liens were considered invalid as they were not filed within the designated timeframe stated in Ark. Stat. Ann. § 51-613.35.7 Aztec Petroleum Corporation (Aztec) acted as the general partner of a limited partnership and had the authority to amend the partnership agreement with a majority vote of 70 percent of the limited partnership units.
Approximately 70% of the limited partnership units decided to modify the partnership agreement, allowing for the removal and replacement of the general partner with a majority vote of the same percentage. Previously, there had been no provision for such actions. In accordance with Texas law, unanimous approval is typically required for new partners, unless specified in the partnership agreement. When a vote was conducted, over 70% of the limited partnership units chose to oust Aztec from its role as the general partner and appoint the MHM Company as a replacement.
Aztec challenged its removal. So who wins? By an amendment to a limited partnership agreement by a majority of the limited partners, Aztec (general partner) was replaced by MHM (current general partner), but Aztec refused to step aside. The Texas Uniform Partnership Act does not prohibit the removal and substitution of a general partner in a limited partnership, even though the partnership agreement initially did not directly allow such action, if the partnership agreement provided a method for amendment and an amendment permitting substitution and removal of a general partner was adopted.
The amendment of the agreement was in accordance with contract law and the agreement itself as the procedure for amendment was agreed upon by the parties involved and was followed accordingly. It was not against the provisions stated in the Texas Uniform Partnership Act or the Texas Uniform Limited Partnership Act to substitute a general partner in a limited partnership if the partnership agreement allowed for amendment and such amendment was approved. Consequently, MHM Company emerges victorious and takes the place of Aztec.
