Norman Costello and Robert Giordano were members of Silk, LLC, which owned a bar and adult entertainment nightclub called Silk Stockings. Costello and Giordano both worked at the bar as well, and supervised and conducted training for other employees, including the bartenders.
One night, Anthony Sulls came to Silk Stockings and drank heavily. Though obviously drunk, employees at Silk Stockings continued to serve him. Costello and Giordano were both working on the night in question, and the evidence shows that they each served Mr. Sulls at least one drink.
Sulls left the nightclub obviously drunk and got in his car. He drove off with two of his friends and shortly thereafter crashed his car, killing himself and injuring one of his passengers, Bill Ridge way. Mr. Ridge way is now suing Costello and Giordano personally for damages related to his injuries.
1) Review the case Hodge v. Strong Built International, LLC (case 17.1), and Section 17-1d in your text. The case based on this information, and your lectures this week, answer this question–“When (if ever) can an individual member of an LLC be held responsible for the debts and liabilities of the LLC?”
2) Review the facts presented in the hypothetical above. Do you think a court in the case of Costello and Giordano might reach a different conclusion than the court in the Hodge v. Strong Built International with regain flack with members of the LLC? Explain your reasoning.
What was the idea of the money related emergency that confronted the government in 1789? The money related emergency of the French Monarchy amid the seventeenth and eighteenth hundreds of years has been an issue of discussion among students of history, on one hand a few antiquarians don't consider the budgetary emergency to have been of incredible impact to the French unrest, while others trust that the monetary emergency was a huge factor of the French transformation. Of the history specialists that trust the last mentioned, there remains argument about the idea of the money related emergency. There is to some degree an established understanding, which keeps up that the money related emergency was because of the arrangement of tax assessment and benefit of France. This translation has been broadly challenged as of late be that as it may, with various new factors becoming visible. Students of history, for example, Joel Felix, now theorize that the budgetary emergency was because of countless, for example, War, the administration's approach of obtaining, fund priests and the arrangement of personal stake. In this article I will look at every one of these variables to figure out what the idea of the money related emergency was, anyway it is my contention that in spite of these elements being vital, proof appears to propose that it was nature in which the administration dealt with the financing amid the war that was the greatest contributing element to the monetary emergency. Right off the bat it is essential to consider the emergency that the government confronted. In the 1780's it was proposed that the French government was troubled with an obligation of 5 million livre, J. Brewer surveyed that between the long periods of 1753 and 1764 the expense of the obligation ascended from 30% of customary income to 60% (Brewer, 1989). This obligation was immense, anyway when considered against the historical backdrop of the French Monarchy, which J. Bosher does in 'French Finances', there seems to have been shortfalls and obligation loads all through, which did not add up to the money related emergency like that seen in 1789. For instance Francois I started his rule with uncertain obligation and obtained intensely from Lyon brokers. So also Henri II finished his reign in a stupendous money related emergency; it appears on examination of the Bourbon government, few had not battled with funds and all had utilized crisis measures to control government accounts. It is critical, at that point, to comprehend that the circumstance that the French government was in amid the seventeenth and eighteenth century was distinctive to the money related issues looked by past rulers yet not new in its origination. In light of this a reasonable assessment can be made of the idea of the budgetary emergency of 1789. Right off the bat I will begin with the established translation that the budgetary emergency was caused generally by an arrangement of tax assessment and benefit that emptied cash out of the French individuals. Significantly the contention centers upon the incredible taxation rate. It was comprehended from this translation that on the grounds that the first and second bequests were absolved from tax assessment, the entire weight fell upon the third domain, and that these duties were strangely high. There are a few issues with this hypothesis of taxation rate upon the third home as a clarification for the budgetary emergency. Right off the bat the 'Cahier de Dolances' confirmations that most protests about tax assessment were worried about the disparities of the duty framework and additionally gathering, protestations about taxation rates to be specific concerned seigneurial or medieval levy that did not add to the Kings yearly income. Also an examination by Peter Mathias and Patrick O'Brien, which concentrated on separate duty rates of Britain and France, found that in actuality the British were all the more intensely exhausted then the French (Felix, 2006). This proof proposes that the money related emergency did not originate from a response to a taxation rate. Be that as it may, who cares about privilege? Plainly the arrangement of benefit made the monetary arrangement of France unfair; additionally benefit was a vital piece of the ancien administration. Inside this sentiment it is contended that the favored requests of France blocked change techniques that would have empowered the government to get more income and right its gigantic deficiencies. The facts confirm that there was restriction to assess changes from the honorability, and case of this originates from the Parelments dismissal of the third vingtieme, which prompted Marion remarking, 'they just had self-interests at heart'. This view indicate that the special sort square change to keep up their way of life is one that numerous established students of history credit to the fall of the ancien administration, and it enables one to interface the issue of benefit to the issue of duty change, yet it seems to need in some significant components that should be represented while assessing the budgetary emergency. Right off the bat, the issue of benefit mistakes tax assessment for back as Joel Felix brings up, 'it doesn't represent the absence of budgetary divulgence which caused the fund priests trouble in anchoring loans'. Furthermore, the contention that the benefit blocked changes for narrow minded intrigue is obliterated by the 'Cahier de Dolances' which demonstrates that with uncommon special cases the individuals from the honorability had collectively communicated the longing to surrender financial benefits and move toward becoming full'. Thirdly, and likely the most condemning feedback of this traditional understanding is that the 'ministry and respectability would have just included 32-36 million livres well beneath what was expected to adjust the budget'. It appears glaringly evident at that point, that neither the taxation rate nor the arrangement of benefit can be ascribed to the money related emergency of 1789, what should be considered is simply the arrangement of tax collection? It has been recommended that 'the maze of expenses, establishments and laws added up to the most ground-breaking square of Monarchy's longing to charge more equitably'. The Crown depended on the administration of middle people to oversee. These specialists were to a great extent free and regularly occupied with benefit making ventures. The financers controlled the acquiring procedure and had a personal stake in keeping the French funds the manner in which they were. In addition to the fact that they would loan cash to the King at high financing costs, which I will manage later, however they removed cash from the Kings income by charging to gather charges. A case of this is the Farmers General, a gathering of private business people that made benefit in gathering charges, orchestrating installments and cash exchanges and loaning to the Crown. Normally 'they made a benefit of 10 – at least 25% of the income collected' for the Crown, Darigrand recommended therefore that 'there was no requirement for assessment change, only a methods for recouping what was lost from collection', he proposed that from 15,000 livre gathered '3,000 was left for the Royal Treasury'. Roussel additionally made this refinement and recommended that the imperfection of the current monetary framework was the 'powerlessness to close the hole between what individuals made good on in government expenses and what the King received'. Gathering specialists likewise firmly contradicted French Bank framework, 'The bookkeepers, Farmers General and different financers would not endure a Central bank framework since it would have chopped down their profits', which would have helped the French government secure back drastically, I will evaluate the outcome of this later on. Here it is important to make an examination among Britain and France as far as assessment gathering, which numerous history specialists, for example, White, Riley and Bosher, do while assessing French accounts. In Britain assess accumulation was in the hands of halfway delegated government authorities, rather than the French framework utilizing free duty gatherers under the Farmers General, who were to a great extent untrained and did not go under the control of the King. The British framework was likewise to a great extent brought together not at all like the French framework which changed by area which made income policing and organization troublesome (Brewer, 1989). Obviously the expense framework in France contributed more than some other component considered so far to the money related emergency. Other than what I have considered effectively a standout amongst the most emotional components of the tax assessment framework was the influence it had on general feeling. There was a profound feeling of disdain for the Farmers General inside French society, this combined with the mystery over French funds bread a demeanor that viewed the money related emergency because of luxurious spending of the legislature and poor administration of back, instead of other more imperative variables, J.Felix arrives at this decision about people in general, 'open who consistently faulted the shortages for poor illustrious organization and consumption of court as opposed to on expense of war and weight on privilege'. Regardless of the harming impact the tax assessment framework had on French accounts it ought to be viewed as that the Farmers General in all actuality took no more prominent rate than some other duty gathering office of this period ever, with this thought of it as appears to be important to assess Louis XVI administration of his funds and his commitment to the budgetary emergency. It was remarked that France was not overburdened by expenses, but rather the political economy obliged the capacity to back state consumption. By this I am not suggesting that the purpose behind the money related emergency was because of the King's luxurious spending at court, anyway the King undertook in sumptuous spending regarding Wars, and it is this which is by all accounts the most harming component concerning French funds. There are numerous issues to consider when taking a gander at France's inclusion in wars. Many belittle the effect of war on a nations monetary circumstance, as 'war was regularly battled on remote soil or adrift and is accordingly less specifically destructive to a kingdoms household economy', anyway a top to bottom take a gander at the nature at which the French government financed wars gives numerous answers in understanding the money related emergency. A few history specialists have said that the money related emergency was to a great extent ascribed to wars. The War of League of Augsburg 1688>GET ANSWER