solved The assignment must be 3 pages APA format Mike Lyons

The assignment must be 3 pages APA format Mike Lyons incorporated
Lyons Concrete, Inc., in Montana, but did not file its first annual report, so the
state involuntarily dissolved the firm in 1996. Unaware of the dissolution, Lyons
continued to do business as Lyons Concrete. In 2003, he signed a written
contract with William Weimar to form and pour a certain amount of concrete on
Weimar’s property for $19,810.
Weimar was in a rush to complete the entire project, and he and Lyons orally
agreed to additional work on a time-and-materials basis. When scheduling
conflicts arose, Weimar had his own employees set some of the forms, which
proved deficient. Weimar also directed Lyons to pour concrete in the rain, which
undercut its quality. Mid project, Lyons submitted an invoice for $14,389, which
Weimar paid. After the work was complete, Lyons billed Weimar for $25,731, but
he refused to pay, claiming that the $14,389 covered everything. To recover the
unpaid amount, Lyons filed a mechanic’s lien as “Mike Lyons d/b/a Lyons
Concrete, Inc.” against Weimar’s property. Weimar filed a suit to strike the lien,
and Lyons filed a counterclaim. [Weimar v. Lyons, 338 Mont. 242, 164 P.3d 922
(2007)] Please answer the following questions: 1. Before the trial, Weimar asked for a change of venue on the ground that a sign on
the courthouse lawn advertised “Lyons Concrete.” How might the sign affect a
trial on the parties’ dispute? Should the court grant this request? 2. Weimar asked the court to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that the state
had dissolved Lyons Concrete in 1996. Lyons immediately filed new articles of
incorporation for “Lyons Concrete, Inc.” Under what doctrine might the court
rule that Weimar could not deny the existence of Lyons Concrete? What ethical
values underlie this doctrine? Should the court make this ruling? 3. At the trial, Weimar argued, in part, that there was no “fixed price” contract
between the parties and that even if there was, the poor quality of the work,
which required repairs, amounted to a breach, excusing Weimar’s further
performance. Should the court rule in Weimar’s favor on this basis?