Law Case Analysis

Law Case analysis Material Facts and Source of Law The complainant William Shelensky was a channelor who have a minority derivationholder of Defendant Corporation called Chicago theme League Ball Club, which operated Chicago Cubs. The Cubs had been suffering operating losses from direct baseball operations from 1961-1965. The director defendant Philip K. Wrigley who owned 80% stock sh ares did non install lights at Wrigley Field so that the Cubs could not typify at iniquity when at home, even though the other 19 major league teams scheduled night games.Defendant (Wrigley) filmed that baseball is a mean solar day sport and that playing at night would adversely affect the adjoin likeness. William appealed a lawsuit against the director Philip K. Wrigley and other directors that their mismanagement of not make lights for night games was contrary and unrelated to military control interest, causing inadequate attention and come with financial losing. Oppositely, defendant s argued that courts couldnt inject business decisions unless there is fraud, illegality or conflict of interest.The source of law is elusion law where the rules of law inform in court decisions. Mr. Justice Sullivan judge on this case establish on previous ground rules deprived from other 10 confirm cases. Specific Legal Issues The case of Shlensky vs. Wrigley involves both forefront of law and motion of fact. It involves question of law because plaintiff and defendant have different positions in interpreting rules. The plaintiff holds that fraud, illegality and conflict of interest are not the yet bases for stockholder to sue the directors while the defendant hold opposite position.Therefore, it postulate judge to interpret and apply the law in this case. It to a fault involves the question of fact, which is whether it likes plaintiffs saying that defendants refusal of constructing lights for night games attributed to the confederation loss. Plaintiffs Argument Plaintiff S hensky was advocating for the damages for mismanagement of directors. The plaintiff also call for the defendant to install the lights in Wrigley Field and schedule night baseball games.The Plaintiff claimed that night games would help the companys financial condition, and that the sales from attendance at night games would pay for the cost of the lights. However, directors refused to install lights in Wrigley Field because the personalised view that night baseball games would disturb surrounding neighborhood. Have the directors been indifferent in failing to exercise cerebrateable care and prudence in the management of the unified affairs by making decisions, not turn push through of a good faith concern for the company, but for personal views.Therefore, The Plaintiff claimed that defendants were liable for mismanagement because reasons of not install lights were contrary and unrelated to business interests. Defendants Argument Defendant Wrigley was advocating for that court could not interfere cooperate affairs if they did not break the law and contract. Defendant claimed that the reason he insist not installing lights is that baseball is a daylight game and night games would disturb surrounding neighborhood.He also claimed that if night games played, the prejudicial effect from neighborhood would decrease companys reputation. However, he was unbidden to play night games if a new stadium was built in Chicago. The defendants argued that their concerning and acting did not break the law, contract and conflict interest. Therefore, the court did not qualify for the responsibility to judge them. Courts Decision and rationale The court ultimately revoked the case and affirmed defendants failure to schedule night games did not constitute negligence.Firstly, The court feels that unless the conduct of directors borders on one of third elements (fraud, illegality, conflict of interest), the court will not interfere the directors decision and behavior. Secon dly, the plaintiffs claims are defective. Plaintiff cannot prove that the decision of not installing lights would bring huge amount of profits to the cooperation because there was no allegement that the night games played by other teams enhanced their financial condition. The plaintiff didnt even take into consideration how much it would cost to maintain the lights.Also, the claim of Have the directors failing to exercise reasonable care and prudence in the management of the corporate affairs by making decisions, not out of a good faith concern for the company, but for personal views is also defective. Because the effect on the surrounding neighborhood is something to be considered when making company decisions, as that affects who attends games as well as the value of the property. The concerning of surrounding neighborhood is a good faith of concern for the company and related to companys long-term interest.The legal rules used by the court complicate many court decisions from ot her similar cases. For example, the court relied on vocabulary found in Hunter v. Roberts, Throp & Co. , 83 Mich 63, 47 NW 131, 134, Courts of candour will not interfere in the management of the directors unless it is clearly make to appear that they are guilty of fraud or misappropriation of the corporate funds, or refuse to declare a dividend when the corporation has a additional of net profits which it can. The Justice Sullivan applied this rule onto the case of Shlensky. Lessons erudite from the Case After analyzing the Case of William Shlensky and Philip K. Wrigley, what I will take onward from reading the case is that courts protect directors rational decisions. These decisions may not be very profitable or right in hindsight, but directors are protected from liability so long as there is no fraud, illegality or conflict of interests of shareholders. It is an important case to analysis because the case teaches more than than just legal principles.By learning law in conte xt of authentic lawsuits, in the case of Shlensky and Wrigley, I learned how disputes arise, how plaintiff and defendant vacate both arguments and how the judge applies previous case law decisions into the current case to make a decision. The judge decides the case based on the received facts other than one partys claiming. Rather than reading pages of annul statements of law, the rule that court cannot interfere legal business decision are presented more vividly by real problems involving real people.