Chapter $35$: CBS Corp. v$.$ FCC$,$ chapter $35$:

Which party prevailed $($won the issue in front of the court see your case summary, chapter $35)$ and explain why they won in this case: CBS Corp. v$.$ FCC$,$

Chapter $36$: Synergies$3$ Tec Services, LLC v$.$ Corvo, chapter $36$:

Which party prevailed $($won the issue in front of the court $-$ see your case summary, chapter $36)$and explain why they won, in this case: Synergies$3$ Tec Services, LLC v$.$ Corvo

Chapter $36$: Read and answer this end of chapter problem #$10$:

Maria Millan opened two brokerage accounts at Dean Witter Reynolds. The broker for both accounts was her son Miguel, an employee of Dean Witter. Over the course of the next three years, Miguel systematically looted his mother$$s account, ultimately stealing from her more than $$287,000.$ He stole checks from his mother$$s bathroom drawer, wrote checks on his mother$$s account, deposited his mother$$s checks into his own account, forged his mother$$s signature on numerous occasions, stole statements from her mailbox, created and sent bogus statements to his mother, and opened a post office box so he could receive his mother$$s actual statements. Dean Witter did not verify Millan$$s signature, as policy required. A Dean Witter supervisor also did not verify a check in the amount of $$35,000,$ which was against Dean Witter written policy. Millan sues her son and Dean Witter for unauthorized transactions, negligence, and gross negligence. Under a theory of direct liability, who is a jury likely to find for? Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, is Dean Witter vicariously liable for the actions of Miguel? $($Hint: Think about whether Miguel$$s actions were within his general scope of authority as a broker.$)$

Chapter $37$: Read and answer this end of chapter $37,$ problem #$7$:

Clint and Paige Crumley lived on a dairy farm in Hand County, South Dakota. In August $2007,$ Clint purchased a herd of dairy cows from James McGregor. When McGregor delivered the dairy cows to Clint$$s farm, Paige handed McGregor a check for payment. While at Clint$$s farm, McGregor observed Paige working with the dairy cows on the farm. In September $2007,$ Clint entered into an oral contract with McGregor about purchasing $25$ more dairy cows. Clint then returned $8$ cows that were substandard. McGregor then prepared a bill for the $17$ cows, which listed the purchasers as Clint and Paige Crumley. When the bill was not paid, McGregor sued both Clint and Paige. Paige was not present at trial, did not testify, and was not called as a witness by either McGregor or Clint. Clint made no admission at trial that Paige was a partner in the dairy operation. Rather, Clint$$s testimony was that he had entered into the business on his own and that he was solely responsible for the debts incurred in the business. Clint also testified that it was him, not Paige, who made the decision to purchase the first herd from McGregor as well as the second herd over which the dispute occurred. Should the court allow McGregor to sue Paige? Is there enough evidence to conclude that Paige is a purported partner in the dairy operation?