Chad was selling flower pots out of his home as a sole proprietor. Chad was not paying his suppliers, and they were threatening to sue him. He decided to incorporate, and in August 2015 he filed a certificate of incorporation, creating Chad Corp. Chad is the sole shareholder and sole director of Chad Corp. Chad Corp. did business from Chad's home. Chad Corp. did not open a corporate bank account but used Chad's personal bank account to pay for both personal and corporate debts. Chad Corp. did not hold any corporate meetings or maintain any corporate books or records. On October 3, 2017, no longer able to obtain widgets from his regular suppliers, Chad called Sell Corp., a manufacturer of flower pots. Chad Corp. placed an order with Sell Corp. for 10,000 flower pots at a price of $1 per pot, to be delivered on October 31,2017 , with payment due on delivery. On October 4, 2017, Sell Corp. sent the following "Order Confirmation" to Chad Corp., signed by Sara, as President: "Sell Corp. accepts Chad Corp.'s order for 10,000 flower pots, at $1 each, delivery on October 31,2017 , payment due on delivery." On October 31, 2017, Sell Corp. delivered the widgets to Chad Corp. Six weeks later, Chad Corp. still had not paid for the widgets. In January 2018, Sara discovered that Chad Corp. was insolvent when it placed the order. Sell Corp. commenced an action against Chad Corp. and Chad individually to enforce the contract. What is the legal standard used to determine whether or not to pierce the corporate veil? When the corporate veil is pierced, who are the persons held liable for the debt or injury? May Sell Corp. successfully maintain an action against Chad individually