analyze the cases in the Questions and Problems: Law Chapter 40 (7 and 8) in Dynamic Business Law For each assigned case, analyze the issue based on the following criteria: Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant). Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns. Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case - be clear. Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.

legal

Chapter 40, Problem 7QP Bookmark gular Show all steps: ON Problem Greatland Directional Drilling voluntarily dis solved as a corporation and received a certificate of dissolution on October 19, 1993. Anadrill, a division of Schlumberger Technology Corporation, acquired Greatland's assets and assumed Greatland's corporate interest and liabilities. A faulty drill bit rack injured Timothy Gossman, an employee of Anadrill, while he was working at a storage facility formerly owned by Greatland. In 1984, one of Greatland's employees incorrectly modified the rack, forgetting to remount a device designed to prevent drill bits from rolling off the rack. Gossman sued Greatland for negligence. Anadrillargued to dismiss the claim because Greatland had dissolved. The superior court agreed with Anadrill, holding that, as a dissolved corporation, it could not hold Greatland liable. Do you agree with the court's decision? How do you think the appellate court decided the case on appeal? [Gossman v. Greatland Directional Drilling, Inc., 973 P. 2d 93 (1999).] Problem The City of Herriman, Utah, decided that it would provide water to its residents through a municipal water system. At the time, Herriman did not own any water, wells, or delivery infrastructure, but the Herriman Pipeline and Development Co. did. The city began to acquire the company's assets. It succeeded, much to the distress of a number of the company's shareholders. The shareholders sued the city, arguing that their shares entitled them to access to water and to an ownership interest in the company's assets. The court dismissed the case, and the shareholders appealed. Did the shareholders have a valid ownership interest in the company's assets? Why? [Dansie v. City of Herriman, 2006 UT 23.]