Memorandum 1: On Advice to Sucha Tees: Standing and Probability of Success in Suit against BVD Partners, Bertie, TMI, and Vinnie (1) Sucha Tees v. BVD Partners, 2) Sucha Tees v. Bertie, 3) Sucha Tees v. TMI, 4) Sucha Tees v. Vinnie)
I. Issue and Relevant Questions
Sucha Tees seeks payment for $1000 spent on their custom t-shirts? Do all four defendants—Vinnie Pacciotto, Bertie Vastar, TMI, and BVD Partners—all assume liability for the payment? If so, how will payment be divided? If not, who (if any of these parties) should assume the liability? Ultimately, did any of these parties breach contract?
Lastly, are Bertie Vastar’s personal savings available to satisfy a judgment?
Additional facts to be obtained in discovery:
—Did BVD partner’s …show more content…
Conclusion
None of these four parties should assume liability for Ivana’s purchase. However, if BVD Partners had been found liable, then all of Vinnie’s and Bertie’s assets would become seizable. Bernie’s assets would not be automatically seizable, but veil piercing through TMI (the partner in BVD) is quite possible.
III. Pertinent Standards and Rules
The relevant standard for establishing joint employer liability is respondeat superior. The Court will evaluate the “scope of employment” standard. It lays out three criteria for adjudication, known as the Birkner test: 1) The employee must be adhering to the duties assigned by the employer, and not involved in a “wholly personal endeavor” 2) the incident occurred “substantially within the hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of the employment” 3) the employee’s conduct must be “motivated, at least in part,” by the serving the employer's interest.
For an employer to assume joint responsibility for an employee’s must be “motivated” by “serving the employer’s interest,” not some unrelated “personal endeavor.”
IV. Application and Analysis
A. BVD Partner’s …show more content…
Roy always gives the order to Ivana, knowing that Bertie always pays for the t-shirts at a later point. Thus, when Ivana entered once more to pick up the tees, she had no reason to believe that anything was out of the ordinary. Ms. Roy instead made the transaction in good faith, knowing that Bertie would pay. However, “Ivana has the t-shirt shop make [the] t-shirts,” which is indeed highly unusual. Bertie always assumes this role. This should have raised questions in Suchandra’s mind, especially given that at no time did Bertie tell Suchandra that Ivana had the authority to request orders.
B. Bertie
Had BVD Partners been found jointly liable for the purchase, then yes, Bertie would be personally liable for the payment. Since she foolishly incorporated under general partnership procedures with Vinny for BVD Partners, the court can dip into her private assets. Her $250,000 in savings from winnings as a fighter would be fair game in judgment.
Alas, BVD will likely not be found liable, so she stays relatively insulated.
C. Vinnie and
I. Issue and Relevant Questions
Sucha Tees seeks payment for $1000 spent on their custom t-shirts? Do all four defendants—Vinnie Pacciotto, Bertie Vastar, TMI, and BVD Partners—all assume liability for the payment? If so, how will payment be divided? If not, who (if any of these parties) should assume the liability? Ultimately, did any of these parties breach contract?
Lastly, are Bertie Vastar’s personal savings available to satisfy a judgment?
Additional facts to be obtained in discovery:
—Did BVD partner’s …show more content…
Conclusion
None of these four parties should assume liability for Ivana’s purchase. However, if BVD Partners had been found liable, then all of Vinnie’s and Bertie’s assets would become seizable. Bernie’s assets would not be automatically seizable, but veil piercing through TMI (the partner in BVD) is quite possible.
III. Pertinent Standards and Rules
The relevant standard for establishing joint employer liability is respondeat superior. The Court will evaluate the “scope of employment” standard. It lays out three criteria for adjudication, known as the Birkner test: 1) The employee must be adhering to the duties assigned by the employer, and not involved in a “wholly personal endeavor” 2) the incident occurred “substantially within the hours and ordinary spatial boundaries of the employment” 3) the employee’s conduct must be “motivated, at least in part,” by the serving the employer's interest.
For an employer to assume joint responsibility for an employee’s must be “motivated” by “serving the employer’s interest,” not some unrelated “personal endeavor.”
IV. Application and Analysis
A. BVD Partner’s …show more content…
Roy always gives the order to Ivana, knowing that Bertie always pays for the t-shirts at a later point. Thus, when Ivana entered once more to pick up the tees, she had no reason to believe that anything was out of the ordinary. Ms. Roy instead made the transaction in good faith, knowing that Bertie would pay. However, “Ivana has the t-shirt shop make [the] t-shirts,” which is indeed highly unusual. Bertie always assumes this role. This should have raised questions in Suchandra’s mind, especially given that at no time did Bertie tell Suchandra that Ivana had the authority to request orders.
B. Bertie
Had BVD Partners been found jointly liable for the purchase, then yes, Bertie would be personally liable for the payment. Since she foolishly incorporated under general partnership procedures with Vinny for BVD Partners, the court can dip into her private assets. Her $250,000 in savings from winnings as a fighter would be fair game in judgment.
Alas, BVD will likely not be found liable, so she stays relatively insulated.
C. Vinnie and