WPC> =s}m,eyoGȨByI}7E]b ue3KFFa"n|Ā&Z0~KTfܦ%<}taIIu9c^Ӈ&yJȜ넞3O׏C0/И`E9^cKӵoY[(/^8zy>U`66$T4>y'1G>'~ŷ GI&ٹxCG4$wZtP'n UN ~2b2ΖU~緼O! hgGX'*~ϨaFd%GA/F`)8V i4 \cȊ>帟dU T[39ԥ7QXIQsՙet%Ix1vj j*JrBEz120EKW,kN-,lBduZN%?Mc#jU#N+ %y 0: ^ w 4   m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0l 0H 0! 0 0 0 0 0U 0% 0 0 0 0G 0" 0 0 0 0p 0< 0 0 0< U4> b<!D! 0 L! 0! 0&" 0# 0TG$ 0T$ 0T$ 0TC% 0T% 0T% 0T?& 0T& 0T& 0 ;' 00( 0%) 0* 0+ 0+ 0, 0- 0. 0 / 0y0 0n1 0`2 0O3 0;4 0$5 0 6 06 1e7 728 1e@8 78 1g8 79U4(9 1u\9 729 0c: 0Of:U+6;N; 7;U_@; 0 <UB<U.= 6= 0e=====a>y>HP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL$,,,,$0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,ԯ/ sU-:i+003|xU2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2  <:Default Para\  `&Times New RomanBoard's Analysis Page of & 67 '4heading 1  XXX     XXX:008Body Text 2  X XXX  X XXX<pz:WP9_Heading   XXXIO\  `Calisto MTIXXXS'\  `&Times New RomanS   6224WP9_Title    XXX    XXX< :Outline001_123  < :Outline001_223  < :Outline001_323  < :Outline001_423  < :Outline001_523  < :Outline001_623  < :Outline001_723  < :Outline001_823  < :Outline001_923  <D+J :Outline002_1   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <D+J :Outline002_2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <A+J :Outline002_3 j 4 ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <>+J :Outline002_4   &hhDL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <;+J :Outline002_5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <8+J :Outline002_6 j <  DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <5+J :Outline002_7   ppL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <2+J :Outline002_8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  </+J :Outline002_9 j D    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <D+J :Outline003_1   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <D+J :Outline003_2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <A+J :Outline003_3 j 4 ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <>+J :Outline003_4   &hhDL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <;+J :Outline003_5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <8+J :Outline003_6 j <  DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j <5+J :Outline003_7   ppL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  <2+J :Outline003_8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  </+J :Outline003_9 j D    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2 j ./012345 35;AGMSY_11.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.I6i.789:;<=> 35;AGMSY_2A.a.i.1.a.i.1.a.K?i.@ABCDEFG 35=CIOU[a3(a)a.i.1.a.i.1.a.MHi.\  `Calisto MT3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Pi)(;3$2#  0  .3  0  8ow6Plain Text  KT<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS'\  `&Times New RomanS  <6X9`(Courier NewI6i.(O Z(Times New Roman 0FF.header   !-  XXX-     !XXX*jp`*Bookman Old Style<6X9`(Courier1, 2, 3,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#)N2Quick 1.[  .0 [    !USUS.,  _   'XIXXX  (8lXXdd8JULY2003BAREXAMINATION  BOARDSANALYSIS      QUESTION1 `      ThequestioninvolvestheissueofadualagencyrelationshipbetweenEarlGordon&Blair, 8  Inc.,itsemployeeagent,BillyRay,andthefiduciaryagentdutyowedtoReelDeal. Agencyisthe $ t fiduciaryrelationshipwhichresultsfromthemanifestationofconsentbyoneperson[theprincipal]  ` toanother[theagent]thattheothershallactonhisbehalfandbesubjecttohiscontrolandconsent  L  bytheothertosoact.Restatement(second)ofAgency1.Thedutiesanagentowestohisorher  8  principalarewellestablished.Anagenthas"adutytohisprincipaltoactsolelyforthebenefitof $  theprincipalinallmattersconnectedwithhisagency."Restatement(second)ofAgency387.The   powersoftheagentaretobeexercisedforthebenefitoftheprincipalonly,andnotoftheagentor   ofthirdparties.InsuranceCompanyofNorthAmericav.Miller,II,362Md.361(2001).Thus,   agentsmustavoidplacingthemselvesinapositionwherehisorherowninterestsorthoseofathird   partymayconflictwiththeinterestoftheirclientorotherprincipal. p     Here,BillyRaywasafinancialadvisorforReelDeal.InthiscapacityheowedReelDeal H afiduciarydutyasanagent.ReelDealtrustedBillyRaysadviceinthiscapacityandbelievedthat 4 BillyRaywouldperforminReelDealsbestinterest.AtalltimesBillyRaywasactinginhis  p capacityasanofficerofEarlGordon&Blair.Thus,ReelDealcanmaintainacauseofaction  \ againstEGBunderavicariousliabilitytheoryfornegligenceasaresultofBillyRaysfailureto H informReelDealaboutthe significantcustomerrelationsproblemsofCatchAllandthebetter 4 ratesofferedbyBestBank.ReelDealmayalsosueEGBforbreachoffiduciarydutyorbreachof   contractforadvisingReelDealtouseNationalBankwhenBillyRaymayhavehadaconflictof   interestwithNationalBankinthathemayhavebeenmotivatedinhavinghisclientsmergeanduse  NationalBanksothathecouldgetacommissionontheloan.BillyRayalsobreachedhisfiduciary  responsibilitybyfailingtoinformReelDealofCatchAlls significantcustomerrelations  problems,despiteknowingoftheseproblems. l   Undercertaincircumstances,anofficerofacorporationmayalsobeheldpersonallyliable D! fortortsofthecorporationinwhichtheofficerwaspersonallyinvolved,eventhoughperformedin 0"  thenameofthecorporation.Thus,thepersonalliabilityoftheEGBsemployee,BillyRay,isalso #l! atissue. $X"   BothEGBandBillyRaymayassertthatReelDealwascontributorilynegligentfornot %0!$ conductingitsownduediligenceandlookingintoCatchAllscustomerrelationsissues.  &"%    #XlXX'XIL#  '#&   'XIXXXl-    'XIXX'XI    -  QUESTION2-X݌  Ќ    'XIXX'XI  #XlXX'XI#B  XlXXXlOXXXXl  C   _   `     h #OXXXOX!##XlXXOX@#'XIXXXl<( 4 <DLX<    EachpieceoflegislationrunsafoulofvariousprovisionsoftheUnitedStates  Constitution.Thoughtherearedistinctionsintheanalysisamongtheprovisions,asathreshold, t allthreecomponentsareattemptstolimittherighttofreespeechguaranteedbytheFirst ` Amendment,andmadeapplicabletotheStatesviatheFourteenthAmendment. L    &  *  'XIXX'XI    *B  Legislation#1*B  Ԍ $ t Ќ  'XIXX'XI  '$ 6  Asathresholdmatter,thispieceoflegislationmaybechallengedasanunconstitutionally  L  vagueandoverbroadpriorrestraintonspeech.Itisvaguebecausetheterms canvassingand  8   townpropertyarenotdefined.Thisisparticularlysignificantsince townpropertymay $  consistofpublicstreetsandparks,traditionallyrecognizedbytheSupremeCourtaspublicfora   historicallyassociatedwiththeexerciseofFirstAmendmentrights.But townpropertymay   alsoconsistofagovernmentbuildingorschoolwherereasonabletime,placeandmanner   restrictionsaremorelikelytobeupheld.Here,thereisnosuchdefinitionof townpropertyso   thestatutemaybefoundvoidforvagueness.Additionally,thestatueisoverbroadinthatit p appliesto anypersonpromoting anycause,therebyrestrictingsubstantiallymorespeechthan \ necessary. H     Thepermitrequirementisapriorrestraint.Priorrestraintsmaybeupheldifthe  p limitationisareasonabletime,placeormannerrestriction.Avalidgovernmenttime,placeor  \ mannerrestrictionmustbe: H  K789:;<=>?(03P"7"  6" <DLX6    7Y2  A  .3   `   Content!neutral7Y݌ 4 Ќ  X  X     "7"  6" <DLX6  72  B  .3   `   Narrowlytailoredtoserveasignificantgovernmentinterestand7P݌   Ќ  X  X   "7"  6" <DLX6  7]2  C  .3   `   Leaveopenalternativechannelsofcommunication.7]݌   Ќ  X  X     <( 4 <DLX<Additionally,atime,place,mannerregulation/permitschememusthavedefinedstandardsand  cannotgrantunfettereddiscretiontoofficials.   X9%4 4 <DLX9 X X<( 4 <DL44X<Legislation#1isnotareasonabletime,placeandmannerrestrictionsincethereisno X  indicationthattherearealternativechannelsofcommunicationavailableandthereisnoevidence D! ofdefinedstandardstobefollowedindeterminingwhethertoissuethepermit,therebygivingthe 0"  Townunfettereddiscretion.Manylegitimatenonprofitcorporationssolicitpersonsinorderto #l! carryouttheircharitablepurposes.TheSupremeCourthasinvalidatedlawsthathaverequired $X" religiousgroupssuchasJehovahsWitnessestoseekapermitbeforesolicitingdoortodoor $D # becausetheissuanceofalicensedependedontheexerciseofdiscretionbyaCityofficial. %0!$ Cantwellv.Connecticut,310U.S.296(1940);WatchtowerBible&TractSocietyv.Villageof &"% Stratton,536U.S.150(2002) '#&  (#' Thelegislationisalsonotaneutraltime,placeandmannerrestrictionsincethefacts )$( indicatethatitwasenactedtoinhibitexpressiondeemedunpopularbytheTownof |*%) Conservative.Here,thereisnosignificantgovernmentinterest,becausethefactsindicatethat h+&* the outsideagitatorsmerely handoutliteratureandconductpeacefulsitins.Itappearsthatit  istheir oppositiontoprayerattheTownspublicmeetingsthattheTownCommissionersare  attemptingtosuppress,thustherestrictionisnottrulycontentneutral,nordoesitpromotea  legitimategovernmentinterest.Fortheaforesaidreasons,thisstatuteisvoidonitsfaceand t unconstitutional. `  X&  *  'XIXX'XI    *'  Legislation#2*'4(  (Ԍ 8  Ќ  'XIXX'XI  '8 '  Onceagain,thisstatutemayrunafoulofthevoidforvaguenessdoctrineinthat  `  canvassingand townpropertyarenotdefined.Thestatuteisalsooverbroadbecauseit  L  prohibitscanvassingfor anyreason.Thus,itisanunconstitutionalrestrictionoftheFirst  8  AmendmentrighttoFreedomofSpeech. $      ThisstatutealsoviolatestheFourteenthAmendmentEqualProtectionClausebecauseit   discriminatesbetweenresidentsandnonresidents.Onlynonresidentsareflatlyprohibitedfrom   canvassing.Furtherstill,thedisparatetreatmentofnonresidentsmayinfringeontheir   fundamentalrighttotravelandmayviolatethePrivilegesandImmunitiesclauseofArticleIV. p ThePrivilegesandImmunitiesClauseprovidesthatthecitizensofeachstateshallbeentitledto \ thePrivilegesandImmunitiesofcitizensintheseveralstatesand,assuch,prohibitsstatesfrom H discriminatingagainstnonresidentswherefundamentalrightsareconcerned.Here,thenon 4 residentsfundamentalrightstofreedomofspeech,freedomofassemblyandfreedomoftravel  p areundulycurtailedbythislegislation.Theprohibitiononnonresidentsfromcanvassing for  \ anyreasonalsolikelyplacesanundueburdenonInterstateCommerce,inviolationofthe H CommerceClause,aswell. 4   &  *  'XIXX'XI    *v/  Legislation#3*v//  /Ԍ   Ќ  'XIXX'XI  'j/  Again,thiscomponentisvagueandoverbroad,forthereasoncitedabove.Itisalsoa  violationoftheFirstAmendmentrightstoFreedomofSpeechandFreedomofAssembly.The  Towncanlawfullyenactatime,place,mannerrestrictionprohibitingcanvassingonprivate l property,asitisnotapublicforum,butmaynotdosoinadiscriminatorymanner.Prohibiting X  onlythosepersons notaffiliatedwithcivicorreligiousorganizationsisnotonlyaviolationof D! theEqualProtectionClause,becauseitdiscriminatesagainstnonreligiousandnoncivic 0"  organizations,butclearlyrunsafouloftheEstablishmentclauseoftheFirstAmendmentwhich #l! prohibitslawsrespectingtheestablishmentofreligion. $X"     TobevalidundertheEstablishmentClause,thelawmust %0!$  M@ABCDEFGH(00K789:;<=>?/ /"@"  6" <DLX6    @52(  a  )3   `   Haveasecularpurpose@55݌ '#& Ќ  X  X     "@"  6" <DLX6  @62(  b  )3   `   Haveaprimaryeffectthatneitheradvancesnorinhibitsreligion@67݌ (#' Ќ  X  X   "@"  6" <DLX6  @!82(  c  )3   `   Doesnotproduceexcessiveentanglementwithreligion@!88݌ )$(   X  X     X9%4 4 <DLX9 |*%)  X<( 4 <DL44X<Byfavoringreligiousorganizations,thepurposehereisnotsecularanditadvancesreligion.   Also, sitinsaresymbolicconductandthus,aformofprotectedspeechundertheFirst  Amendment.Toprohibiton townpropertyisasuppressionoffreespeechandbecauseonly  certaingroupsarediscriminatedagainst,itviolatesthe14thAmendmentEqualProtectionClause t andtheFreedomofAssembly. `     &  *  'XIXX'XI    *<  Penalty*<<  <Ԍ 8  Ќ  'XIXX'XI  +  X'XIXX'XI  +=  '8 <+==݌ $ t Ќ  X'XIXX'XI  Finally,the$50,000fineforanyviolationofthestatueisexcessive,inviolationoftheEighth  L  Amendmentprohibitiononexcessivepunishment.#XlXX'XI #   8     QUESTION3  m?   UnderSection3301oftheMarylandUniformCommercialCode,atthepointEarlobtained  possessionofthecheck,hebecametheholderofthecheck.UnderSection3301Earl,asholder, t isthe personentitledtoenforcethecheckeventhoughheisinwrongfulpossessionofit. ` UnderSection4205oftheMarylandUniformCommercialCodeadepositorybankmaybecome 8  holderofacheckdepositedtotheaccountofacustomerifthecustomerwasaholder,whetheror $ t notthecustomerendorsesthecheck.Thus,BestBaltimoreBankbecameaholderofthecheckand  ` entitledtoenforcethecheck.Accordingly,thereisnobreachofwarrantyunderSection3417or  L  4208byBestBaltimoreBankbecauseitwasentitledtoenforcethecheckwhenitwasforwarded  8  forpaymenttoCarrollCountyNationalBankunlessBestBaltimoreBankknewabouttheforgery $  ofTeresassignaturebyEarl.NeitherCarrollCountyNationalBanknorFreshAir,Inc.haveany   actionagainstBestBaltimoreBank.       AlthoughSupplierCo.isanactualentity,underSection3110,Earl,despitebeingathief,isaholder   and,thus,thepersonwhoseintentdeterminestowhomthecheckispayable.Here,Earldidnot p intendSupplierCo.tohaveanyinterestinthecheck.UnderSection4401,abankmaycharge \ againsttheaccountofacustomerwhenitisproperlypayable,i.e.,authorizedbythecustomer.Thus, H becauseFreshAir,Inc.didnotauthorizeEarltokeepthecheckforhimselfortosignTeresas 4 signature,thecheckwasnotproperlypayableandisnotchargeabletoFreshAir,Inc.saccount,  p insomuchasanyunauthorizedsignatureisineffectiveasthesignatureofthepersonwhosenameis  \ signedunderSection3403(a).Therefore,FreshAir,Inc.sbank,CarrollCountyNationalBank,will H havetorecreditFreshAir,Inc.saccountintheamountof$10,000.00. 4   UnderSection4208,CarrollCountyNationalBankcangoafterEarlonhiswarrantythathehad   noknowledgethatthesignatureonthecheckwasunauthorized.Also,FreshAir,Inc.maygoafter  Earlforconversionofthestolencheckandthemoneyfromitsaccount.  BecausethedebtowedSupplierCo.hasneverbeenpaid,FreshAir,Inc.muststillmakepayment l toSupplierCo.fortheservicesitrendered. X  @  EXTRACTSECTIONSFORQUESTION3  0"   AnnotatedCodeofMaryland,CommercialLawArticle  $X"  TITLE3.NEGOTIABLEINSTRUMENTS:3110,3301,3403,3404 %0!$ TITLE4.BANKDEPOSITSANDCOLLECTIONS:4205,4208,4401 '#&     (#' 'XIXXXlS  ' X'XIT4c '     SpL  #  T4cQL#XlX WXIXXXl QUESTION4 #XlXXWXIBM#TX XXXl#T4c  XTX#M#SpLL݌  ЌTX X T4c'XIX XTX   LS  ' X'XIT4c '   SiN  SiNN݌̌TX X T4c'XIX XTX   S  ' X'XIT4c '   S\O    TX X T4c#XlX XTXM#WXIXXXlThesefactsaredesignedtoaddresstheenforceabilityofanexculpatoryclausecontainedin L amembershipagreementbetweenahealthclubanditspatron,andwhethertheissueappropriately 8 canbedeterminedbyaMotionforSummaryJudgment.S\OO݌ $t ЌWXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXSQ  SQR݌̌WXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXSS    Anexculpatoryclausegenerallywillbegiveneffectifitisclearandunambiguousinstating  L thatitsintendedpurposeistorelieveoneparty(Superfit)fromliabilityfortheconsequencesofits  8 negligentconducttowardtheotherparty(Alice).SSS݌  $ ЌWXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXSU  SU0V݌̌WXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXSV    Exculpatoryprovisionsinacontract,eventhoughclearandunambiguouswillnotbe    enforcedif(a)theharmfulconductoftheprotectedpartyiswillful,wanton,recklessortheresult   ofgrossnegligence;(b)thebargainingpowerofonepartyissogreatlyunequalastoputtheparty   atthemercyoftheothersnegligence,and(c)thetransactiongivingrisetotheexculpatoryprovision p  involvesthepublicinterestandgivingeffecttoitwouldviolatepublicpolicy.SVaW݌ \  ЌWXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXS;Z  S;ZZ݌̌WXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXSl[    UnderthesefactsthetrialcourtwouldlikelyfindforSuperfitonthemeritsofitsdefense. 4 ItdoesnotappearthattheconductofSuperfitanditsemployeewaswanton,recklessorgrossly  p negligent.Unequalbargainingpoweraloneisinsufficienttoshowapublicpolicyviolationwhich  \ requiresthatadecisivebargainingadvantagebecoupledwithaservicedeemedessentialtothe H publicasawhole.Theserviceofafitnessorhealthclubdoesnotmeetthistest.Sl[\݌ 4 ЌWXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXS^  S^_݌̌WXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXS`    WhilethecourtmayultimatelyupholdtheexculpatoryprovisionandfindinfavorofSuperfit   onthesefacts,itshoulddenySuperfitsMotionforSummaryJudgment.Thequestionofthedegree  ofSuperfitsnegligenceisagenuineissueoffact,whichprecludessummaryjudgment.Thecourt  cannotassumethattheconductofSuperfitanditsemployeewassimplenegligence,gross  negligence,willful,wantonorreckless.Thedegreeofitsculpabilityisamaterialissueoffact.S``݌ l ЌWXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXSc  Sc@d݌̌WXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXSd    Summaryjudgmentisonlyappropriatewhenthereisnogenuineissueofmaterialfactand D themovingpartyisentitledtojudgmentasamatteroflaw.Sdqe݌ 0 ЌWXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI   S  ' X'XIT4c '   TX X T4cWXIX XTXSf  Sfkg݌   l ЌWXIXXWXI'XIXXWXI       QUESTION5   h   X  Stubbs,asalicensedcertifiedpublicaccountantandmemberofDCB,isindividually  liabletotheBankforthenegligencehecommittedinissuingtheincorrectandincomplete t financialstatementandopinion.Marylandlawprovidesthatanindividualwhorendersalicensed ` professionalserviceinMarylandasanemployeeormemberofaMarylandlimitedliability L  companyisliableforanynegligentorwrongfulactsoromissionsinwhichtheindividual 8  personallyparticipated.StubbssupervisedtheservicesrenderedtoNorn,Inc.( Norn)inthe $ t preparationofthefinancialstatementandissuanceoftheopinion.Consequently,Stubbswillbe  ` personallyliable.See,Md.CodeAnn.Corps.&Assns.4A301.1.  L   X XCheck,alicensedcertifiedpublicaccountant,assistedwiththepreparationofthe $  financialstatementandopinion,maybepersonallyliabletotheBanktotheextentthatdamages   werecausedbyhisnegligence.    X XAnindividualwhorendersaprofessionalserviceinMarylandasanemployeeofa   Marylandlimitedliabilitycompanyisnotliablefornegligentorwrongfulactsoromissionsof p anotheremployeeormemberofthelimitedliabilitycompanyunlesstheemployeeisnegligentin \ appointing,supervising,orcooperatingwiththeotheremployeeormember.Otherthanthe H appointmentofStubbsbyDCBtohandletheworkassignmentforNorn,noothermember 4 supervisedorcooperatedwithStubbsorCheckinprovidingtheaccountingservicesrelatedto  p thepreparationofthedefectivefinancialstatementoropinion.Unlessitcanbeprovedbythe  \ BankthatDCB'sselectionorappointmentofStubbswasnegligent,theotherDCBmembersare H notpersonallyliabletotheBank.See,Md.CodeAnn.Corps.&Assns.4A301.1(a)(2). 4  X XDCBacceptedtheworkassignmentandadoptedthefinancialstatementandopinionfor   usebyNorn.Consequently,DCBisliablefortheactsofitsemployeesoragentswhoperform  professionalserviceswithinthescopeoftheirauthorityorapparentauthority.See,4A  301.1(b).IfitcanbeshownthateitherStubbsorCheckfailedtoperformtheservices(i)within  thescopeoftheirrespectiveauthorityand(ii)withintherequisitestandardsofcare,thenDCB l maybeentitledtoindemnificationforitslosses. X    X#XlXX'XI.P## XXlO#XlX 'XIXXXl    `     h      h+&*   QUESTION6  t  RespondeatSuperior  RespondeatSuperiorwillenableBigBuckstobringanactionagainstSmallFryfortheactionsof t anemployeeactingwithinthescopeofemployment. `   Defamation 8  BigBucksscauseofactionagainstSmallFryfordefamationisbarredbecauseasuitfordefamation $ t mustbebroughtwithinoneyearofthedatetheactionaccrues.Section5105oftheCourtsArticle.  `     TortiousInterferencewithContractualRelations  8  Apartywhointentionallyinducesapartytobreachacontractwithoutlegaljustificationisliablein $  torttotheinjuredcontractingparty.Orfanosv.Athenian,Inc.,66Md.App.507,505A.2d131   (1986).Toestablishacauseofactionfortortiousinterferencethefollowingelementsmustbe   shown:       1. ` Existenceofacontract;     2. ` Defendantsknowledgeoftheexistenceofthecontract; p   3. ` Intentionalandimproperconductthatinducesathirdpartytobreachthecontract; \   4. ` Thirdpartyssubsequentbreachofthecontract;and H   5. ` Damagesresultingfromthebreach. 4   Stannardv.McCool,198Md.609,84A.2d862(1951);Orfanosv.Atenian,Inc.,supra.  p   SmallFrywasawareoftheemploymentcontractbetweenBuffetandBigBucks.Theactionsof H SmallFrywereintentionalandimproperandweredirectedatthecontractualrelationsofBigBucks. 4 BuffetbreachedhiscontractandBigBuckscanshowactualdamagesresultingfromthebreach.     Damages  IfBigBuckscanshowits$500,000lossisdirectlyattributabletoBuffetsinvestorsleaving,itwill  beentitledtorecoverthe$500,000reducedbyexpensesitwouldhaveexpendedtogeneratethese  revenues.FromthesefactsBigBuckssavedthe$200,000itwouldhavepaidasBuffetssalary, l reducingBigBuckspotentialrecoveryto$300,000. X    Punitivedamagesarerecoverableuponproofofactualmalicewhencompensatorydamagesare 0"  awarded.Actualmaliceisconductinfluencedormotivatedbyhatred,spiteorwithintentto #l! deliberatelyinjurethePlaintiff. $X" Thesefactsdonotsupportafindingofactualmalicesufficientforarecoveryofpunitivedamages. %0!$   InMaryland,impliedmaliceisnotsufficienttosupportanawardofpunitivedamagesfortortious '#& interferencewithcontract.SeeAlexanderv.Evander,336Md.635,650A2d260;26869(1994), (#' andcasescitedtherein: TheMarylandruleisthatmaliceinthesenseofdeliberateandimproper )$( violationofaknownright,thatis,absenceoflegaljustification,willsupportanactionandpermit |*%) recoveryofcompensatorydamagesfordeprivationofknowncontractualrightsbutthatactualmalice h+&* mustbeshowntosupportpunitivedamages.Damazov.Waltby,259Md.638,270A.2d819  (1970).      SeeSchaeferv.Miller,322Md.297,587A.2d491,501(1991)discussing disallowanceofpunitive t damagesbasedonimpliedmaliceintortactionsforinterferencewitheconomicrelations. `     L   QUESTION7   #' X'XI:t## ' Yt#XlX ZXz XXXl    #XlX XZXz[#WXIXXXlRobberyisthetakingandcarryingawayofthepersonalpropertyofanother(orofwhich  hehaspossessionorcustody)fromhispersonorinhisimmediatepresencebyviolenceorby t puttinghiminfearwithintenttopermanentlydeprivehimoftheproperty.Williamsv.State,7 ` Md.App.683,256A.2d776(1969).Wherethereisnoputtinginfear,theremustbeactual L  violence.Sufficientforcemustbeusedtoovercomeresistance.Clark&Marshall,ATreatiseon 8  theLawofCrimes12.13(7thed.,1967).Itisnotrobberytosuddenlysnatchpropertyfrom $ t anotherwhenthereisnoresistanceandnomoreforcethanisnecessarytothemereactof  ` snatching.Cooperv.State,9Md.App.478,265A.2d569(1970).IfLarryusednomoreforce  L  thannecessarytosnatchthebriefcase,heisnotguiltyofrobbery.  8   XPossessionistheexerciseofcontrolordominionoverathingbyaperson.Knowledgeof   thepresenceofthesubstanceisnecessarytoconstitutepossession.Dawkinsv.State,313Md.   638,547A.2d1041(1988).WhileLarryexercisedcontroloverthebriefcase,thereisno   evidencethatLarrywasawareofitscontents.   Ѐ  Mistakeoffactisanhonestandreasonablebeliefintheexistenceofcircumstances, \ whichiftrue,wouldmaketheactwithwhichthedefendantischargedaninnocentact.Mistake H offactisordinarilyadefensewhenthemistakewasnotduetothedefendant'snegligence. 4 Mistakeoffacteliminatescriminal#XlXXWXIDž#ZXz XXXlԀ#XlX XZXz-#WXIXXXlintentrequiredforacriminalact.  p  ^   Mistakeoffactisnotadefensetoaviolationofacriminalstatuteenactedintheexercise J ofpolicepowertopunishaprohibitedactwithoutregardtocriminalintent(malaprohibita). 6 Ѐ#XlXXWXIp#ZXz XXXl " #XlX XZXz#WXIXXXlHowever,theprohibitionagainstpossessionofcontrolleddangeroussubstancesisnota  mere"publicwelfareoffense"orregulatorylaw.Knowledgeofthegeneralcharacterorillicit  natureofthesubstanceisanelementoftheoffense.Dawkinsv.State,supra.Larry'sbeliefthat  thesaltshakercontainedsalt,ratherthancocaine,maybeadefense.   X  #W XWXI<# # W Q#'    !.  # ' #XlX 'XIXXXl  aweb_QUESTION8  N  a.)  TheCourtshouldnotrequireCeliatotestifyagainstAlfie.Inacriminalmatter,the  spouseofadefendantcaninvoketheprivilegeunderMd.Ann.CodeCts.&Jud.Proc.9106to t refusetotestifyagainsthisorherspouse.Themotivationforthemarriageandthetimingofthe ` marriageareirrelevant;thespouse'srighttoinvoketheprivilegeisabsolute.See,Hagezv.State, L  110Md.App.194,676A.2d992(1996)andStatev.Walker,345Md.293,691A.2d1341 8  (1997).Although9105oftheCts.&Jud.Proc.Articleonlyprotectsconfidential $ t communicationsmadebetweenspouses#' X'XI#'XIX' #XlXX'XI/#YX!XXXlduring#Y&XYX!ؕ#YX!XY&#XlXXYX!#amarriage,9106makesnosuchdistinction,  ` andservesasanabsolutebartocompellingthetestimonyofspousesduringacriminaltrial.  X  Furthermore,priorstatementsofaspouse,whetherornotthepersonwasmarriedtothe  D  defendantatthetimethestatementsweremade,cannotbeadmittedintoevidenceunderthe 0  exceptionalcircumstancesprovisionsofMd.Rule5804(b)(5).ForpurposesoftheRule,the   spouseisnot"unavailable"becausethespousalprivilegehasbeeninvoked.Statev.Walker,   supra.   X  ! !X!-  XlXXXl  ?( 4 <DL!?XE  XE݌̌-     XXXlXXXl  -  b.)  Thecrumpledcopyofhermarriagecertificateisadmissible.Ifthedocumentisunder | seal,itisaselfauthenticatingdocumentunderMd.Rule5902(a)(i),andcanbeadmittedinto h evidencewithoutfurthertestimonyordocumentation.Ifthedocumentisnotunderseal,further T authenticatingtestimonywillberequiredbeforeitcanbyadmittedintoevidence.Md.Rules5 @ 902and51005.Thestatemayobjectthatthedocumentiscumulativeandunnecessarybecause ,| CeliahasalreadytestifiedthatshemarriedAlfie.See,Md.Rule5403. h  XSimilarly,adefenseobjectionbasedontheBestEvidenceRulewillbeoverruledbythe @ Court.TheMarylandRulespermittheintroductionofphotocopiesor duplicateoriginalsin , lieuoftheoriginaldocumentsincephotocopiesareinherentlyreliable.Unlessdefensecounsel  challengesthecontentsoftheduplicate,andthefactsdonotindicatethatsuchachallengewas  made,theCourtwillpermitCeliatoofferthephotocopieddocumentandwillacceptit.Md.  Rules51002,51003;Md._Cts_.&_Jud_.Proc.CodeAnn.10103(a)(4).SeeStatev.Brown,  129Md.App.517,743A.2d262(1999). x  Xc.)Thegunshopowner'stestimonyisinadmissibleashearsay.Thefactsdon'tindicatethatthe <"  owneristestifyingfromrecordsthatwerekeptatthetimeofthesaleoftheguntoA.Ifthe (#x! ownerweretestifyingaboutrecords,therecordsthemselveswouldbeadmissibleunder_Md.Cts_. $d" &_Jud_._Proc.Code_ԀAnn.10101.Thehearsaytestimonyofthegunshopownerbasedonhe %P # testimonyofAlfie'sbrothershouldnotbeallowed. %