There are no right or wrong answers, just personal opinins...
#1 Four sentences, what do you think? In the case of Bullington v. Palangio, the Bullington Construction Corporation was contracted to build a house for Palangio, before construction was completed the
corporation's charter was revoked for tax problems. Bullington still completed construction, even though the corporation no longer existed. When there was complaints and a law suit about the workmanship, the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a decision
that even though the charter was dissolved Bullington was still held liable afterword when he acted without the charter. Had one of the head officers of Enron felt bad and financially helped out an employee
they had known, would he be held liable by his actions? Would it be an admission of guilt and wrongdoing from his time when Enron was still a corporation?
#2. Four sentences, what do you think? "Did you expect a corporation to have a conscience, when it has no sould to be damned and no body to be kicked?" -Edward Thurlow.This is an awesome quote. It must have really been a dilemma in the first days of corporate America to hold someone accountable who wasn't even a person (ie: a corp). I'm glad there are laws now that will hold agents of corporations accountable even if the
corp itself cannot be held accountable.
#1. He would be held liable, though the courts may act with more leniency towards him because of his actions towards that employee. Just because the corp no longer existed, he still had a duty of care ...