Mark Burnett and Kamran Pourgol were the only shareholders in a corporation that built and sold a house. When the buyers discovered that the house exceeded the amount of square footage allowed by the building permit, Pourgol agreed to renovate the house to conform to the permit. No work was done, however, and Burnett filed a suit against Pourgol. Burnett claimed that, without his knowledge, Pourgol had submitted incorrect plans to obtain the building permit, misrepresented the extent of the renovation, and failed to fix the house. Was Pourgol guilty? If so, how might it have been avoided?

Question

Friday

Social Studies

25 May, 12:17

Mark Burnett and Kamran Pourgol were the only shareholders in a corporation that built and sold a house. When the buyers discovered that the house exceeded the amount of square footage allowed by the building permit, Pourgol agreed to renovate the house to conform to the permit. No work was done, however, and Burnett filed a suit against Pourgol. Burnett claimed that, without his knowledge, Pourgol had submitted incorrect plans to obtain the building permit, misrepresented the extent of the renovation, and failed to fix the house. Was Pourgol guilty? If so, how might it have been avoided?

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Heidy Hebert · Answer 1

Creature of statute

Explanation:

A "creature of statute" is a legal entity. It is also known as creature of state. It is a corporation established by the enactment of the government and works according to the principles and standards as laid down by the government. Any body or establishment created under the statute must function within the scope as detailed by the statute.

In the context, If Burnett and Pourgol established their corporation under a statute which would have guidelines and standard to be maintained in their business, then this problem as mentioned in the question could be avoided.