Question

GROUP DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 

PART A

 In this part A, we want to make sure we understand the basic facts in the previous hypothetical, and then think about and reference some of those facts in answering the 2 questions below. You don't have to write down your answers, but can discuss the questions amongst your group members. 

1. Briefly, what happened here? What do you see as the main issue? 

2. Do you feel that Luisa has the right to do what she is doing with her separate company? Or, is Luisa wrong to be doing what she is doing, even if her argument is freedom of contract? Explain. (Note: Are there any facts in the scenario which you can point to support your position!)

Answer 1

Question 1. Does State Statute #2 fit our hypothetical for determining that Luisa is a fiduciary? why or why not?

Ans.: In the present case scenereio & the proisions of State Statute #2, Luisa is a fiduciary because its a venture of closely held persons. The Company is owned by 4 persons equally contributing to the corpus and they have created a trust on each other and have good faith & honesty demands here. Luisa being One of the owner, she is in fiduciary position with the other owners as per law. She has broken by taking the same product line in other compnay.

Question 2. How do you think that State #2 was motivated by policy considerations in crafting this statute?

Ans.: State Statute #1 were having lacuna's in proving such cases of fiduciary positions. Specific allegations were not easy to be proved. Special duty & Special trust were the key elements in former law, & have some limitation while before the law. Hence the policy makers took a new thought and made it with broader perspectives and hence State Statute #2 were crafted.