Business Law Final Assessment
Business Law Final Assessment
Case study One: Funny Face v. Donald Margolin
The principle factor that needs to be established in the case of Funny Face and Novelty Now v. Donald Margolin Empire Inc. is the jurisdiction. This case does not appear to meet the requirements to obtain selective federal jurisdiction. As per Section 302 of the New York State common practices laws and principles representing jurisdiction by non-domiciliary, since neither Novelty Now Inc nor Funny Face has no immovable property; or executes any business with the state or has no contracts stating to supply products or administrations in the state, or conferred a tortious act inside the state aside from, frequently does or requests business or takes part in some other steady course of act or generates considerable critic from merchandise utilized or consumed or benefits rendered in the state (New York Civil Practice Law and Rules). The fitting court for this claim relies upon three contemplations. Individual jurisdiction is the intensity of a court against parties for the lawsuit filed (Boldon 2011). Altogether, for a court to exercise it power of jurisdiction over the parties, constitution demands that the parties have a specific least contacts with the discussion which the court sits jur. For this Lawsuit, the State quotes would be suitable since as indicated by the agreement, the dispute can only be carried out within the state of Florida.
Mediation and arbitration would be the best Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). Utilizing these would refute the guidelines of locale, which would likewise enable him to endeavor to move the ADR to a closer area. Assertion would permit everybody including more control over the procedure yet at the same time keeping up some formal suit. ADR would likewise give a speedier determination’ more affordable and gives more prominent adaptability of process and method. Mediation may permit the company to settle the case caused with their products but a lawsuit can still be filled because the product can harm the users from general population, which is of limited benefit considering the case at hand. The company is also liable for maximizing their profit through an act of deceptions. The recipe for the product was intentionally altered with Chris in that manner using a non-FDA approved recipe. Therefore, the company is guilty of negligence of manufacturing a defective product, which they knew about.
The ethical decision surrounding the case can be determined, with three concepts of How, Who, purpose. How helps determine the role played with the company to develop the product, who help identify the affected parties (consumers), and purpose determine their aims of manufacturing the product. Under all these three concepts, the company is liable for failing to use appropriate ethical decision which turn has turned out to be costly in the end.
Case study two
For contract to be valid, four principle elements need to be validated. These include intent or an offer to perform a specific task, an acceptance offer, a goal to enter into legal dealing, and contemplation of an offer as mentioned by (Kusabek, 2010). In light to the above information, Sam entered in a legal dealing with national chain store through a verbal contract to supply them with his barking dog machine.
By agreeing to supply the national chain store with 1000 units, Sam established an acceptance offer in that manner entering into a verbal contract with the store. Therefore, if Sam is able to delivered the ordered units, a legal relation between the company and the said individual is established. However, Contemplation in the case of Sam, occur when both parties agree on the amount to be paid for the units ordered. In light to above said, Sam has entered into a quasi-contract with national chain store, therefore, it is acceptable in federal court. On the other hand, if Sam fail to deliver their said units, a promissory estoppel is valid and Sam can be sued for breach of contract.
Sam is also bound with rental contract. Under the contract, he has to exist and create a favorable environment for his neighbor. Considering the noise created with machines, the property owner has the right to evict the Sam for breach of contract. However, the property owner has failed to give Sam a warning against, such violation with 30 day period to resolving which give Sam a Chance to refute in a law court or an attorney.
Case study Three
Boldon, R. M. (2011) Long-arm statutes and internet jurisdiction. The Business Lawyer, 67 (1) 313 -320. Retrieved from: http: ezproxy.snhu.edu/login?url-http://search.proquest.com/docview/927908461?