Case 1Constance Barr was the sole owner of The Stone Scone, a business operated as a sole proprietorship. Based on documents signed by Barr on behalf of The Stone Scone, Fleet Bank approved a $100,000 unsecured small business line of credit for The Stone Scone. Fleet Bank sent a letter addressed to Barr and The Stone Scone, which stated, “Dear Constance H Barr: Congratulations! Your company has been approved for a $100000 Small Business Credit Express Line of Credit.” The bank sent account statements addressed to both The Stone Scone and Barr. For four years, Fleet Bank provided funds to The Stone Scone. After that time, however, The Stone Scone did not make any further payments on the loan, leaving $91,444 unpaid principal. Bank of America, N.A., which had acquired Fleet Bank, sued The Stone Scone and Barr to recover the unpaid principal and interest. Barr stipulated to a judgment against The Stone Scone, which she had converted to a limited liability company, but denied personal responsibility for the unpaid debt. The trial court found Barr personally liable for the debt. Barr appealed.IssueIs Barr, the sole owner of The Stone Scone, personally liable for the unpaid debt?Language of the CourtThe trial record contains sufficient evidence that Barr is personally liable for the debt owed to Bank of America. The evidence demonstrates that, at the time Barr acted on The Stone Scone’s behalf to procure the small business line of credit, she was the owner of The Stone Scone and the sole proprietor of that business. An individual doing business as a sole proprietor, even when business is done under a different name, remains personally liable for all of the obligations of the sole proprietorship. As the sole proprietor of The Stone Scone when that sole proprietorship entered into the agreement for a line of credit with Fleet Bank, Barr became personally liable for the debts incurred on that line of credit account.DecisionThe supreme judicial court affirmed the trial court’s judgment that held Barr personally liable, as the sole proprietor of The Stone Scone, for the sole proprietorship’s unpaid debt owed to Bank of America.Critical Legal Thinking QuestionsWhy are sole proprietors personally liable for the debts of their business?Did Barr act ethically in denying responsibility for The Stone Scone’s debts?Case 2Rodger House purchased a tractor on credit from Pankratz Implement Company. House signed a note and security agreement that made the tractor collateral for the repayment of the debt. The creditor filed a financing statement with the Kansas Secretary of State using the misspelled name of the debtor, “Roger House” rather than the correct name of the debtor “Rodger House.” One year later, House obtained a loan from Citizens National Bank (CNB). House gave a security interest to CNB by pledging all equipment that he owned and that he may own in the future as collateral for the loan. CNB filed a financing statement with the Kansas Secretary of State using the correct name of the debtor, “Rodger House.”Several years later, while still owing money to Pankratz and CNB, House filed for bankruptcy. Pankratz filed a lawsuit in Kansas trial court to recover the tractor. CNB challenged the claim, alleging that it should be permitted to recover the tractor. The trial court found that Pankratz’s misspelling of the debtor’s first name on its financing statement was a minor error and granted summary judgment to Pankratz. The court of appeals held that Pankratz’s misspelling of House’s first name was seriously misleading and held in favor of CNB. Pankratz appealed.IssueIs Pankratz’s filing of the financing statement under the wrong first name of the debtor seriously misleading?Language of the CourtBecause the primary purpose of a financing statement is to provide notice to third parties that the creditor has an interest in the debtor’s property and the financing statements are indexed under the debtor’s name, it is particularly important to require exactness in the name used, the debtor’s legal name. We conclude that Pankratz’ filed financing statement was “seriously misleading.”DecisionThe supreme court of Kansas held that the misspelling of the debtor’s name misled creditors and was therefore ineffectual in giving CNB notice of Pankratz’s security interest in the tractor. The supreme court affirmed the court of appeals judgment in CNB’s favor.Critical Legal Thinking QuestionsWhy did the court apply the filing requirement so literally?What would be the consequence if courts allowed otherwise?Did either party act unethically in this case?

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.