Suppose that during construction, Lafayette asked Carl Davidson to rent space in a warehouse that was close to the bridge so that she could work on her sculptures near the site where they would eventually be installed. Carl Davidson signed the rental contract in his own name rather than the name of the LLC. The other members of Davidson Masonry were not aware of the rental agreement. In this situation, would a court likely hold that Davidson Masonry was liable on the contract that Carl Davidson had entered

Question

Law

Arnold

19 August, 08:50

Suppose that during construction, Lafayette asked Carl Davidson to rent space in a warehouse that was close to the bridge so that she could work on her sculptures near the site where they would eventually be installed. Carl Davidson signed the rental contract in his own name rather than the name of the LLC. The other members of Davidson Masonry were not aware of the rental agreement. In this situation, would a court likely hold that Davidson Masonry was liable on the contract that Carl Davidson had entered

+3

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Marvin Campos · Answer 1

Answer: Yes, a court would likely hold that Davidson Masonry was also liable on the contract that had been entered by Carl Davidson.

Explanation:

Yes, I believe that Davidson Masonry would also be bound by the contact that has been entered into by Lafayette. Carl Davidson did so for the purpose and goal of the project that they were all working on in their joint venture.

Even though Carl Davidson entered into this separate agreement without the knowledge of Davidson Masonry's, Carl still did so while in the joint venture with them and also for the purposes of the joint venture project. Therefore, Davidson Masonry would likely be bounded by a court to this contract.