p1

1. X Corp. operates a call center that received orders for pizzas on behalf of Y Corp. which operates a chain of pizza restaurants. The two companies have the same set of corporate officers. After 2 years, X Corp. dismissed its call agents for no apparent reason. The agents filed a collective suit for illegal dismissal against both X Corp. and Y Corp. based on the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction. The latter set up the defense that the agents are in the employ of X Corp. which is a separate juridical entity. Is this defense appropriate?

a.Yes, since the two companies perform two distinct businesses.

b.No, since the doctrine would apply, the two companies having the same set of corporate officers.

c.Yes, it is not shown that one company completely dominates the finances, policies, and business practices of the other.

d.No, the real employer is Y Corp., the pizza company, with X Corp. serving as an arm for receiving its outside orders for pizzas.

2.Corporation X has a statement of capital stock in its articles of incorporation but it was stated in the same articles that dividends are not supposed to be declared, that is, there is no distribution of retained earnings. Corporation X is:

a.Corporation by prescription

b.Corporation by estoppel

c.Non-stock corporation

d.Stock corporation

3.Which of the following losses will not cause the dissolution of a partnership?

a.Loss before delivery of a specific thing where the partner promised to contribute only its use and enjoy reserving the ownership thereof.

b.Loss before delivery of a specific thing which a partner has promised to contribute to the partnership.

c.Loss of a specific thing after its delivery to and acquisition of its ownership by the partnership from the partner who contributed the same.

d.Loss after delivery of a specific thing where the partner contributed only its use and enjoyment, he reserved the ownership thereof.