Using the language and principles of law and focusing on agency law, as well as the corporate form of business, analyze the legal benefits and liabilities of the corporate structure to determine the optimum business response to a corporation`s efforts to expand its territorial operations.
Write a three-page response to the following:
Review the following Colorado Supreme Court case:
Grease Monkey v Montoya Case
Describe the business relationship between Grease Monkey and Arthur Sensenig.
In light of that business relationship, do you agree with the Court`s determination that the former was liable for the tortious acts of the latter? Why? Why not?
What should Grease Monkey have done to avoid or mitigate its liability?
What should the Montoya`s have done to avoid their loss?
Submit your assignment to the Dropbox following the instructions of your facilitator.
CASE LAE Name: Institutional Affiliation: Montoya v Grease Monkey Holding Corp 904 P.2d 468 (Col. 1995) A Grease Monkey`s Uncle, er, Agent The Business Relationship between Grease Monkey and Arthur Sensenig Considering the oddly named and extreme case of Grease Monkey International, Inc. v. Montoya, 904 P.2d 468 (Colo. 1995). Mr. Sensenig was a former banker in the case hired by the president of Grease Monkey International Inc. As president, Sensenig appeared before the public to act as authorized personnel of the company. Unfortunately enough, the owners of the company never realized that Sensenig was a dishonest employee within the company (Adams, & Smith, 2013, pp.52). Sensenig`s scheme and main agenda were to contact his former clients from the bank he worked for in a bid to solicit funds from them in the name of loaning money to invest in Grease Monkey, an aspect that succeeded, thus enabling him to raise $500,000. In return, Sensenig put th