Margolin’s Funny Face Essay

Chris, Mat, and Ian, the California-based owners of Funny Face aftershave lotion, have partnered with Novelty Now Inc. in Florida to produce and market their product. Chris meets with Novelty Now reps and instructs them to use PYR instead of an FDA-unapproved inexpensive chemical emulsifier. Advertising for Funny Face can be found in newspapers, radio, and internet. Due to the marketing strategy, successful CEO and public speaker Donald Margolin of New York purchases Funny Face online, but when he uses it, the product permanently tints his face blue. Consequently Donald Margolin and his company Donald Margolin Empire Inc. filed a suit in the state of New York against Novelty Now Inc. and Chris, Matt, and Ian, alleging negligence and seeking medical costs and compensation for the damage to his face and business reputation. However, Novelty Now Inc. states in the contract with product owners that all disputes must be brought in the state of Florida. It is discovered that PYR product of Novelty Now Inc., caused Margolin’s skin discoloration.

Novelty Now Inc. has committed fraud and violated the Responsible Corporate Officer (RCO) doctrine. These are serious criminal acts whose implications may include imprisonment, criminal fines, or restitution for damages caused. Funny Face owners are also enjoined in this case by the RCO since they hold a position of responsibility and authority but failed to prevent Novelty Now Inc. from adding PYR to their product (Sack & Radick, 2011). Novelty Now Inc. committed fraud by adding PYR into the Funny Face aftershave cream yet they knew the product has not been approved by the FDA. By violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act, the Novelty Now Inc. must take criminal liability and seek ways of settling Mr. Margolin without causing more harm to the customer and business partners. This case if not well handled could bring down Novelty Now and Funny Face. Arbitrated restitution is therefore the best legal option for the company since it is a win-win for both the plaintiff and the defendant. Since the case is also a violation of ethical standards, the company may lose its customers if it becomes public.

Sam’s barking devices

Sam may not be able to immediately supply 1000 units of his barking machines to the national supply chain since he has an eviction notice from his landlord, Quinn. However, there is no binding agreement between Sam and the supply chain. Following the eviction notice, Sam lacks the capacity to supply the machines requested. The supply chain has not also inspected his production capacity therefore it is uncertain that he will actually deliver. A contract stipulates all terms that should be met by both parties, however in this case there are no clear terms. Therefore legally speaking there exists no contract. However a promissory estoppel could be present in this case since his promise to ship 1000 can be induced. A promissory estoppel enables the injured party to recover on a promise. However, in this case, Sam’s failure to abide by the “promise” does not injure the store’s profit in any way.

Sam also violated his rental agreement given there were several complains from other tenants concerning his barking devices. From the eviction letter, Sam’s landlord also finds out that he violated the agreement by establishing business in the apartment. This is despite the fact that he had informed his landlord of his business and the landlord wished him well. It is the duty of the tenant to ensure minimal disturbance to other tenants. The landlord is therefore legally justified to evict Sam based on the complaints by other tenants which breaches the tenancy agreement (McQueen, 2013). The conversation with landlord informing him of his activities posses the elements of a quasi agreement and therefore may be used for self defense. Sam has also the right to request for court eviction order before vacating the apartment. These are the two ways which Sam can use to defend him and deliver on the order by the store before moving out(Ford, & Cross, 2000).

.

Jeb and Josh’s Arcadia Sports

A business entity is an organization that is established to generate income for the owner, employ workforce, and independently pay government taxes. There are different types of business entities available to investors defined by their characteristics. The two major types are general partnership and limited partnership. Arcadia sports can therefore choose either of these business entities. However, it should be noted that both have their advantages and disadvantages. The table below illustrates the advantages and disadvantages of general partnership and Limited partnership.

Business Entity Advantages Disadvantages

General Partnership It is easy to establish since little paperwork is needed.

There is no double taxation, and no corporate forms are required when filing tax returns.

Little to no fees associated with the creation; multiple owners allowed; owners can include their fair share of business loss on personal income taxes Personal income taxes must be paid by all owners on net business profits; liability for debts, judgments, etc. are the responsibility of all owners.

The Partnership is terminated by withdrawal or death of either partner.

The actions of one partner affect the other partner and the business entity.

Limited Partnership The owner faces limited liability unless if s/he has done something as an individual.

Ease of gaining investors due to only being responsible for the sum of their monetary investment; owners debt also holds a limited liability; partners can walk away from the business without dissolving the partnership.

Little involvement of the partners since the management is responsible for running the business More expensive to establish than a “GP”; usual beneficial for real estate and industry businesses- such as film; general partners are personally liable for business debts..

A limited partner has no much say in regular business matters and decisions

A limited partner stands to lose his/her status to become a general partner if he/she becomes too involved.

The two business entities in the in the table above are easy for Jeb and bush to adopt and manage. Through Arcadia sports, they have a foundation on a course they can venture on together and make profits.

References

Ford, M. J. W., & Cross, S. S. (2000). Connecticut corporation law & practice. Gaithersburg: Aspen Law & Business.

McQueen, J. (2013). An Emerald guide to landlord and tenant law.

Sack, J. & Radick, R. (2011). Revival of the Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine. New York Law Journal. Retrieved from http://www. NYLJ.com