So I am studying the case of Dog House Investments, LLC v. Teal Properties, Inc. Sometimes the owners of a corporation use the corporate entity to perpetrate fraud, circumvent the law, or in some other way accomplish an illegitimate objective.In these situations, the court will ignore the formation and structure of the corporation and hold the shareholders personally liable for a corporate obligation.I know this is called piercing the corporate veil.So the questions I have are:

What are some of the factors that cause the courts to pierce the corporate veil? What was the contract between Dog House Investments, Inc. and Teal Properties, Inc.?How was it breached? When Dog House Investments, Inc. was not reimbursed it caused severe financial duress.Does this consequence make the landlord's conduct unethical?Explain. What is the standard for an award of punitive damages for a contract breach? Was the standard met in this case? How might this suit have been avoided altogether? Was Jerry Teal's disregard for the corporate form unethical?Why or why not?