Indiana Business Legal Questions

What do you mean when you say the company was sold?  If the company was a corporation or other independent entity (e.g. an llc) and what was "sold" was just equity in the company (e.g. shares of a corporation), the company still exists, it is just owend by different people, and your contract, which I assume was with the company, continues regardless of who owns the company.  If yoiu have a contract with IBM, the contract remains in forcee regardless of who owns the shares of IBM.  If, however, you mean that the assets of the company were sold to another owner, that could be a different story.  In that case, the original contracting party may or may not have the rightt to assign the contract to another person or entity, depending on what the contract provides.... Read Answer

Regardless of whether a non-disclosure or non-competition agreement exists, the former employee can't use the trade secrets of his/herformer employer.  As long as he/she does not utilize his/her former employer's trade secrets, absent an agreement to the contrary, a normal employee (as opposed to an employee who originally sold hte business to its new owner) has no obligation not to compete with his former employer.... Read Answer

It is not libel or slander (libel is written defamation; slander is oral defamation) because you did not publish (nor even threaten to publish) any false statement of fact, nor did you cause any damages.  You simply said that you would publish your opinion of the way the apartment management handled the situation if they did not handle it to your satisfaction.  Nor is it illegal for you to threaten to do that which you have a legal right to do unless someone else gives you some consideration not to do it, e.g. "if you insist on charging that much, I'm going to take my business elsewhere", "if you don't gas up the car when you use it, I'm not going to let you use it anymore", "if you don't give me a raise, I quit." ... Read Answer

An employer is liable for the actions of its employees when those actions are done in the course and scope of their employment.  If a McDonald's employees undercooks your hamburger and you get trichinosis, McDonald's is responsible.  If, on a lunch break off McDonald's premises, that same employee breaks your nose in a fight, McDonald's is not responsible.  From what you've described, it seems to me to be a close call whether this person's activities were during the course and in the scope of his/her employment, although if the food service (or someone in authority at the food service) either knew (or should have known) about it, or was sharing in the profits from the wrongdoing, you'd have a much better shot.  Another problem is that a food service rep may not be an employee of the food service; he/she, depending on how much discretion he/she had with regard to how he/she did his/her job, could be considered an independent contractor, for whose actions the food service would probably not be responsible.... Read Answer

You're doing a direct examination?  Why would you ask that question of your own witness?  If the witness is hostile, even if you called the witness you can ask leading questions (although you have to ask the judge for permission to treat the witness as hostile first); if the witness is not hostile, why do you want to make him/her look bad by asking such an incriminating question?   Regardless, here are some non-leading questions:   What advice did you give Donna? Did you advise her about any other options she might have? At the time you gave that advice, did you know that Donna's husband had violently abused her previously?  (Depending on the circumstances, i.e. whether it is disputed whether Donna's husband had violently abused her, you may have to ask the question slightly differently, e.g. "At the time you gave Donna that advice, had she told you that her husband had violently abused her previously?") When you gave Donna that advice, did she indicate to you whether she thought it was good advice or whether she would be able to follow it?  (This is really a compound question, but I think you'll be able to get away with it; if not, just break it up into 2 questions.)... Read Answer

I don't think you have to do either.  A dba ("doing business as") is just a name you use to do business, it is not a separate legal entity.  If your business is x corp., d/b/a Bob's Pizza, x corp. is still the employer, the paychecks are still drawn on the account of x corp., the office is still leased or owned in the name of x corp., etc. ... Read Answer

The lease obligation continues, despite the fact that the business went under, but the question of whether you are personally liable on the lease depends on the form of the business.  If, for example, it is a corporation, and the corporation is the lessee, then the individual shareholders are not liable on the lease (unless they have personally guarantieed it).  If the business is a sole proprietorship, or general partnership, the owners are personally liable for its obligations, including the lease.  Even where the corporation is a lessee, most landlords will insist on personal guarantees from its owners, unless it is a well established business. ... Read Answer

A better approach would be to contact the company and seed to be a distributor for the particular market. For example, there is the bottled water business, and then there are special sizes of bottled water used on airplanes and cruise ships. Seeking to become an (exclusive) distributor for the smaller market may yield your desired result. Otherwise, the company has not duty to you not to sell directly to your customers.... Read Answer

The use of a mark that is phonetically identical to the mark of another is extremely risky, because there will always be the possibiiity that an appreciable number of ordinary consumers, hearing your name, will falsely conclude that your goods or services are endorsed or sponsored by the "senior" user, which is not the case. Pick another name.... Read Answer

It is not a conflict of interest unless the "individuals" are making a profit using this information on the side while still employed by the business. Once their employment terminates, as a general matter, they are free to compete with their former employer. That is the American way. Lower prices are generally favored by the legal system. Unless the prices in question are literally a trade secret and the company takes appropriate steps to enforce its rights to that secret -- which is rarely the case, since prices aren't generally secret (customers know them) -- merely undercutting the prices charged by a former employer is generally lawful.... Read Answer

Making a personal investment in someone else's privately held business where you will have a minority interest is fraught with problems. Have you considered what your exit strategy will be? How will you keep track of the progress of your investment, get financial information, etc.? These are issues that even professional venture capital investors have tremendous difficulties with. The liability issues you raise are easily managed, particularly with insurance; but the structural problems associated with such an investment are challenging. You should consult with an attorney who can review the proposed investment and help you document your rights as an investor.... Read Answer

When you sell a capital asset, you are taxed on the difference between its deemed cost to you (which is called "basis") and the selling price. This difference is called a "capital gain," and federal income tax is imposed on capital gains at various rates, depending on the nature of the asset and how long it has been held, often as low as 15%. In general, your basis in an inherited asset is the fair market value of the asset at the time of death of the deceased. Thus, if the fair market value of property was $100,000 at the time of death and you sell it five years later for $200,000, you would pay a federal income tax of 15% of the difference, or $15,000.... Read Answer

As a threshold matter, you need to review carefully the contract you entered into with this processing firm. Although the charges may seem unfair, they are not going to be recoverable if, in fact, you agreed to pay them. It seems as though you are unfamiliar with the contract. It is either a one-year contract or something else. What, exactly, does it say? What does the contract provide with respect to where and how disputes are to be resolved?... Read Answer