Facts This is the who, what, when, where, and why of the case. Remember this is a brief, so you can just summarize. A suit was filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against the defendant for breach of an express warranty under Kansas law, the plaintiff claim that the item that was acquired failed to perform, the jury deliberated that the plaintiff should receive damages, and yes it was a breach of a contractual agreement, usually when you purchase a good unless its stated as is, you are assuming that the item is in reasonable condition. Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise. Any description of the goods which is made part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description Plaintiff argued, the defendant appealed the decision, and claim that the suit was barred by the Kansas statute of limitations, the defendant state that because the plaintiff signed a disclaimer he agreed to a limited.
COMM400 Case Study #2 Abstract I chose the case of New Kids on the Block v. News America Publishing, Inc. This case involves issues of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946, trademark infringement, and the restraints that can legally be enforced if the trademark’s owner claims it has been used inappropriately. Although the First Amendment protects unauthorized trademark usage in comedic, parodied or critical usage situations, it does not guarantee that trademark usage will never be used without the owner’s consent, especially for the purpose of newsgathering. The core issue in this case is whether or not trademark infringement actually happened. In order for the court to determine whether or not a trademark has been infringed, considerations such as the “strength of marks, the similarity in appearance of the products, the meaning of the marks, the kinds of goods in question,, and the intention of defendant using the mark” must be considered (2012).
He authorized the charging of his credit card, The TV Corporation International charged the credit card. Subsequently, The TV Corporation International tried to avoid handing over the domain name to Lim using several pretexts like there was an e-mail error, the minimum bid amount had not been bid for and other such reasons. Issues of Law being raised are accepting to bid on the online auction and paying through the credit card the sum requested by the seller, is there an enforceable contract? Can the seller be sued for breach of contract? Procedural history is the trial court dismissed the case because the court held that since the domain offered and the one accepted were "different' there was no contract formed.
In the case Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court invalidated a law, passed by Congress, by declaring an act unconstitutional for the first time. The doctrine of Judicial Review was set forth by this case. The Court did not want to show vulnerability of its judicial prestige so it only asserted minimal power. Marshall’s decision suggests he was aware of the long-term objective to enhance judicial powers and diminish state autonomy. In Fletcher v. Peck in 1810 Marshall was ready to declare a state law unconstitutional.
The Court also rejected counterclaims asserted by Amazon, arising out of Toys R Us's alleged failure to maintain levels of inventory sufficient to meet customer demand. The Court's 132 page decision provides a window into the negotiation of a highly complex transaction, in which the parties have competing visions of the structure of the transaction, and settle on contractual language that does not fully express those visions, or resolve the parties' conflict. In resolving this dispute, the Court elected not to base its determination on the literal meaning of the words ultimately accepted by each side. Instead, it strove to find their intentions in entering into this Agreement, and to give effect to those intentions. In so doing, the Court found that it was the parties' intention, under their agreement, to make Toys R Us the exclusive toy retailer allowed to market on Amazon.com.
The Karen case on an ad of Slim Sally looks similar to the Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball in 1893 where the ad offered some amount of money if the product did not work or affect the consumer as promised. Refer to the Carbolic smoke ball case, Carlill as the consumer has won the case decided by the court where the court judged that the company has done a binding contract with the consumer. At the beginning, the company of the Carbolic Smoke Ball refused to pay Mrs Carlill because they say the ad offer was just a ‘puff’. There were also some arguments given by the company in the court. First, they say that it was no intention that brings to the legally binding agreement.
as a whole” test laid down by Lindley MR in Allen as inappropriate in the context of competing rights and interests of shareholders.18 The court drew a distinction between two different types of constitutional alterations. For alterations not involving “expropriation of shares or of valuable proprietary rights attaching to shares” it is sufficient if the special resolution is passed regularly, is not ultra vires, not beyond any purpose contemplated by the constitution nor oppressive.19 With respect to alterations that do involve expropriation of shares, or valuable proprietary rights attached to shares, different considerations apply. The majority laid down a twopronged test, holding that amendments to the constitution permitting expropriation are only permissible if: • the power is exercisable for a proper purpose; and • its exercise will not operate oppressively in relation to minority shareholders.20 Ibid at 386. Contra this reasoning see Brett W King, “Use of Supermajority Voting Rules in Corporate America: Majority Rule, Corporate Legitimacy, and Minority Shareholder Protection” (1996) 21 Delaware Journal of Corporate Law 895 at 907. 13 Vanessa Mitchell, “Gambotto and the Rights of Minority Shareholders” (1994) 6 Bond Law Review 92 at 102.
I believe that Marshall granted this case cert. because there was a potential loophole in the Constitution regarding powers granted to the state and to Congress that both Gibbons and Ogden tried to play in their favor. Marshall saw this, and gave his interpretation of it, asserting that essentially, the federal government gets the benefit of the doubt. At the time, although it may have seemed like a not-so-important case, it was very revolutionary. John Marshall’s Supreme Court’s ruling provided a broader interpretation of the power mandated to Congress: “If, as has always been understood, the sovereignty of Congress,
Despite this, Zenger’s defense found every opportunity to present that truth should be a justifiable defense in a libel case. The defense also argued that free speech was fundamental to a good, successful government. John Peter Zenger was found not guilty of the charges. There is much controversy regarding the importance of the Zenger Affair’s impact on the history of New York. Some say that it was nothing more than an inconclusive political confrontation.
Main Claim The Defense of Marriage Act is an unconstitutional law. Republicans are defending the Defense of Marriage Act. Reasons 1. A federal district judge in NY rules the “Act” violates the Constitution because it charges federal estate tax to same-sex spouses but not to opposite-sex spouses. 2.