The Crowne Inn

This case confirms why families should not do business together. The case centers on the going concern about the ownership and management of a bar originally started by the father of the family. There is a verbal agreement between the parents and their son about the payment for the establishment; this was declared in front of the parents and their attorney.

The income statement for Crowne Inn shows that the establishment is operating with a modest profitability. The credit for this success is given to the son Bruce. The sales of alcoholic beverages in the United States have increased, but the bar industry has been experiencing fluctuations, to keep the establishment a growing concern will require that the owner(s) keep up with current trends while maintaining the existing clientele. The location of the establish seems to be appropriate to continue to gain in profitability.

There are already three options for the conclusion of this disagreement in place. Option 1 is the have the son Bruce pay a lump sum, option 2 is to have Bruce pay a smaller lump sum and continue to pay his mother $500 a month for the remainder of her life, and finally option 3 is the sell the bar outright to an outside party. The main objective is resolving the conflict without injuring the family dynamic further. The mother does not want to lose the son but also needs the income for her own survival. By his own admission, any of the option would alienate the son cause a rift between mother, son, and grandchildren.

First, the original verbal contract needs to become a written contract, this way all parties could read the agreement in black and white. The reactions to inquiries about the bar and the finances make it appear as if something inappropriate is taking place. The second step would be to conduct an audit of the books for Crowne Inn, to make sure all the financial statements are correct. Third, the fair market value for the property, equipment, and