Facts: Section 3(c)(1)(D)(ii) of FIFRA authorizes EPA to consider certain previously submitted data only if the "follow-on" and registrant has offered to compensate the original registrant for use of the data. The legislation provides for binding arbitration. However, if the registrants fail to agree on compensation, the arbitrator's decision is subject to judicial review only for "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct." The manufacturing firms engaged in the development and marketing of chemicals used in pesticides, appealed the EPA decisions and began proceedings in Federal District Court to challenge the constitutionality of the arbitration provisions. They argued EPA violated Article III of the Constitution by allocating to arbitrators the functions of judicial officers and by limiting
a) Mary- Sales of Goods Act, Consumer Protection Act, Negligence b) Myrtle – Sales of Goods Act, Consumer Protection Act, c) Bench World – Negligence, d) Agnes Ponsonby Smythe – No liabilities e) Junior blender - Capacity 2. Fully explain the liabilities involved by applying legal rules to support arguments in each instance Mary and Myrtle under the sales of goods act section 14 (2), can sue Divine Fragrances for breach of product satisfactory quality. Section 14 (2) of the sales of goods act provides that when a seller sells goods in the course of his business, there is an implied term that the goods supplied are under the contract of satisfactory quality. The inclusion of the 1994 supply of goods act section 14 (2A) further implies that a product is of satisfactory quality if they meet the standard that a reasonable person would regard as satisfactory. Furthermore section 14 (2B) lists safety and freedom from minor defects as principal factors when judging if a product sold by the seller is of satisfactory quality (Kelly, et all, 2004, pp 221).
name an "express warranty." What are the UCC principles of good faith and reasonableness to sales contracts? What are the different ways that title transfers under UCC Article 2? Which party bears the risk? What distinguishes a sale on approval, sale on consignment, and sale or return under UCC Article 2?
CLAHASSEY V. C AMI INC. 2002 Mich. App. LEXIS 1352 September 24, 2002, Decided Law for Recreation & Sports Managers p.297 The Clahassey v. C Ami Inc. case is a case that illustrates the value of a sound risk management plan. The defendant clearly held an event in a hazardous location, did not use enough spotters, and failed to warn others of the risks. This case also illustrates the importance of training personnel who will complete incident reports to include essential information and omit potentially harmful editorial comments. In this negligence action, defendant C Ami Inc (Traffic Jam Lounge) appeals as of right from a judgment entered in favor of plaintiff following a jury trial in the amount of $77,950.50 including $59,321.50 in attorney fees that defendant was ordered to pay as case evaluation sanctions.
In Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932]1, the courts judged the manufacturer of the ginger beer, David Stevenson of Paisley owned a duty of care to Mrs Donoghue even though there was no contract between them. In Lord Atkin’s “neighbor” principle, liability should be found as long as someone failed to “take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions” which he/she can “reasonably foresee”2 would be likely to injure his/her neighbor, policy factor seems to be irrelevant in deciding whether a duty of care exists. On the other hand, policy factor is one of the major factors in drawing a line to mark out the bounds of duty. The reason of the courts using public policy principles to draw a line to mark out the bounds of duty to limit the responsibility of the defendants is twofold. Firstly, the responsibility of the defendants ought to be limited due to the ‘floodgates’ problem of to many potential claimants.
The negligence was certainly made by the driver , but in what capacity. Proximate: This form of negligence requires foreseeability of what happened Causation: The basis upon which a lawsuit may be brought to the court Negligence: would be carelessness except the following did occur: The tortfeasor was under a duty to use due care. The tortfeasor breached that duty of due care. The tortfeasor’s act was the actual cause of injuries or damages. The tortfeasor’s act was the proximate cause of injuries or damages.
Under California law, trespass to chattels "lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused injury." (Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1566, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468, italics added.) In cases of interference with possession of personal property not amounting to conversion, "the owner has a cause of action for trespass or case, and may recover only the actual damages suffered by reason of the impairment of the property or the loss of its use." (Zaslow v. Kroenert, supra, 29 Cal.2d at p. 551, 176 P.2d 1, italics added; accord, Jordan v. Talbot (1961) 55 Cal.2d 597, 610, 12 Cal.Rptr. 488, 361 P.2d 20.)
The person who is accused must have committed an act of omission or commission; this act must have been in breach of the person’s duty; and this must have caused harm to the injured person. The complainant must prove the allegation against the doctor by citing the best evidence available in medical science and by presenting expert opinion. In some situations the complainant can invoke the principle of res ispa loquitur or “the thing speaks for itself”. In certain circumstances no proof of negligence is required beyond the accident itself. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission applied this principle in Dr Janak Kantimathi Nathan vs Murlidhar Eknath Masane.
When the opposite occurs the burdens falls on the police department. For instances; in the case of Weeks v. United States in 1914, Chief Justice Edward D. held court in that the evidence illegally obtained by police in violation of the Fourth Amendment rights of Weeks. He ruled that it would not be admissible in federal courts eventually, in 1961, this rule was extended to state courts. The central drive for the exclusionary ruling is to discourage police misconduct then, now and for the future law enforcement. In another case, Rochin v. California (1952)—Exclusionary rule applied to all cases involving extreme police misconduct The case ended in the Supreme Court with the case being reversed.
Thus, the establishment of the Wage Board was an unjustified interference with the freedom of contract. In their dissent, justices William Howard Taft, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., and Edward T. Sanford argued that Congress had the policing power to correct recognizable evils. The effects of Adkins v. Children’s Hospital were reversed in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish (1937), when the Supreme Court overturned the position that had been adopted by the court’s conservative majority and ruled that some government intervention in contracts between employers and employees is not unconstitutional. Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412