![]() The analysis and representations concerning the compound submitted by Plastoid Products, Inc., had in turn been prepared by Plastic Products, Inc., the manufacturer from whom Plastoid Products, Inc., was to purchase the material for resale to Minyard. In an effort to comply with the requirements of his subcontract, Minyard decided upon a "regular Plastoid" caulking compound, which is not the name of a specific material, but, instead, is a generic term and the trade name of several grades of caulking compound manufactured by Plastic Products, Inc., and distributed by a subsidiary corporation Plastoid Products Company, Inc.Īs required by the contract, Minyard submitted to HANO's architects a sample of the "regular Plastoid" caulking compound, together with a chemical and physical analysis of the compound which had been submitted to Minyard by Plastoid Products, Inc., from whom Minyard was buying the caulking compound. Compound shall form a thin tough elastic film on surface but remain permanently plastic underneath * * *." Compound shall be of proper consistency to be readily worked and not be affected by vibrations or long exposure to outside climate or temperature changes. ![]() ![]() "Caulking compound shall be Kuhl's Plastoid, Pecora, or equal. The subcontract restated those portions of the general contract which were pertinent to the required application of caulking materials it read in part as follows: Minyard was to receive $3,000 for the work *425 and for furnishing the materials. For the purposes of this construction, Pittman entered into a subcontract with Minyard whereby the latter became bound for the application of caulking materials under Pittman's general contract with HANO. On Mathe Housing Authority of New Orleans (HANO), as owner, entered into a construction contract with Pittman Construction Company (Pittman) for the construction of Section I of the Desire Street Housing Project (Project). The sole issue presented for this Court's consideration is whether or not appellant's cause of action as set forth in the "Petition for Indemnity" has prescribed under Articles 25 or 3544 of the Civil Code. Writs were granted to review this action. The trial court and the Court of Appeal have sustained Curtis' peremptory exceptions and have dismissed Minyard's suit. Curtis filed peremptory exceptions based upon pleas of prescription of one year for actions in redhibition under Civil Code Articles 25 and of ten years for personal actions under Article 3544. Minyard d/b/a Rockwood Insulation Company (Minyard) filed a "Petition for Indemnity" against Curtis Products, Inc., (Curtis) on November 17, 1965. Cassisa, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee, respondent. Graham, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.īernard, Micholet & Cassisa, Paul V. The paper strives to explain and reveal the mystery of this action from a different point of view, especially with respect to commerical law (ius commercium), following the scholarly knowledge of modern Italian school of Roman law.*424 Graham & Graham, Louis B. to the amount of the peculium, can be seen as a typical form of the modern limited liability company. The fact that a slave was conducting business activity on behalf of his dominus (whom he was representing) and entering into contracts with third persons, but the dominus was liable for such obligations only to a certain extent, i. ![]() From the functional point of view, an important analogy can be drawn between actio de peculio and modern corporate law. These actions were implemented into the Roman "law order" by the praetors edict activity, namely, from the chronological point of view, between the 2nd century B.C. The conference paper deals with actio de peculio, or more precisely actio de peculio et de in rem verso, which falls under the group of adjective actions (the so-called actiones adiecticiae qualitatis). Actio de peculio liability limited liability company
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |