Question

David Wallace was the president, chairman of the board of directors, and majority shareholder of Paper Imports, Inc. Acting as president, David Wallace negotiated a series of contracts that caused the corporation serious economic losses. As president, David Wallace failed to exercise the care of a reasonably prudent person acting in similar circumstances.

When substantial economic losses began to pile up, David Wallace insisted that the corporation breach a contract with Dunder Company in favor of a larger contract with Mifflin Enterprises. David Wallace hoped to reverse Paper Imports, Inc. economic decline through this contract with Mifflin, but the attempt failed. Paper Imports, Inc. insolvent and failed.

There were two lawsuits against David Wallace, (1) a creditor of Paper Imports, Inc. sued David Wallace alleging that the negligence of David Wallace had caused Paper Imports Inc. to fail to pay the creditor, and (2) Dunder Company sued David Wallace claiming that David Wallace caused Paper Imports, Inc. to breach its contract with Dunder.

Who would win in each of these lawsuits?

Answer 1

Answer:

(1) As I would see it, David Wallace would win the primary claim or lawsuit because the loan boss(creditor) of Paper Imports Inc. can't demonstrate that David Wallace caused Paper Imports Inc. to neglect to pay the creditor. There is no proof supporting the case made by the creditor. The creditor can't demonstrate this case and subsequently won't win the claim.

(2) Dunder Company will win the claim or laws suit because the discoveries bolster the case made by Dunder Company that David Wallace caused Paper Imports Inc. to break it's agreement with Dunder. All confirmations for this situation point against David Wallace and he really demanded that corporation breach it's agreement/contract with Dunder Company for bigger agreement with Miffin Enterprises.