Facts
Parties Arguments
Court's Decisions
Relevance & Rational
Miscellaneous
100
P.I.M.L., the plaintiff, is a Florida based corporation that did what
What is…a corporation that sells apparel for Fashion Links, which entered into a contract with Fashion Links before it was incorporated. P.I.M.L. now claims that Fashion Links has not fully compensated them by failing to pay the full commissions on sales of apparel on two accounts, Target & Maurices, which was agreed upon on the defendants, Davidson, Hilburn, and MecKelvey.
100
The plaintiff's argument in the case.
What is Plaintiff P.I.M.L claims the defendants entered into a contract on behalf of Fashion Links.
100
What was the ruling of the lower courts?
What is..The lower court found that the defendants Davidson, Hilburn, And mckevley were in fact pre-incorporation promoters of the business Fashion links and ordered the defendants to pay a penalty of 151,541 dollars for violation of Minnesota law.
100
What is Relevance to Business Law?
Promoters occupy a fiduciary relationship toward the prospective corporation. Their position does not give them the right to secure any benefit or advantage over the corporation itself, or over other shareholders.
100
What was the single problem raised by the appeal?
What is..The single problem raised by the appeal is the whether or not any reasonable juror could find out whether the defendants were promoters of the business fashion links.
200
Defendants claim that?
What is…That they were not a promoter of Fashion Links or that Fashion Links was not a joint venture. But a promoter in the courts eyes is someone who takes the beginning steps into forming a business for the purpose to promote and organize that business. And the court sees a Joint venture as anyone who puts their time, money, and resources into business operations and to share profits and gain ownership.
200
What is the defendants arguments?
What is...Defendant Hilburn testified that he signed a document on behalf of Fashion Links as being a "partner". Defendant Davidson testified that he designed the Fashion links business cards. And evidence showed that defendant McKelvey sent emails discussing business strategies for both the Target and Maurice's accounts.
200
Why were the Defendant's motions for amended judgements and a new trial denied by the appellate court?
No citable error by the court, the case was tried by able counsel, and all parties had a fair and equal opportunity with the jury.
200
The rationale of the court
What is the court agrees that the defendants were engaged as a pre-incorporated promoter of the business Fashion Links and by their actions formed a contractually agreement with P.I.M.L. due to substantially evidence of multiple testimonies, documents, and emails.
200
We agree with the courts decision
What is...The opinion of the team collectively is that we agree with the lower courts decision to find the defendants guilty and to award the plaintiff, PIML for unpaid commissions and inventoried. We also feel that the appeal court’s decision to refuse to hear the case.
M
e
n
u