Toys R Us.com, LLC v. Amazon.com Docket No. C-96-04 (Superior Ct. N.J., March 1, 2006) After a lengthy trial, the Court found that defendant Amazon.com had breached an agreement it had entered into with plaintiff ToysRUs.com LLC ("Toys R Us"), by permitting third parties to sell toys on Amazon's web site. Finding that this breach went to the substance of the parties' agreement - which as interpreted by the Court provided that Toys R Us was to be the sole third party toy retailer on Amazon's web site - the Court granted Toys R Us's request that the agreement be terminated. Notwithstanding its finding that such a breach had occurred, the Court did not award Toys R Us damages. 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 first category of advertisements is not considered offers, while the latter is not. Because the Vehicle Code forces dealers to sell at advertised prices if the vehicle remains unsold and before the advertisement expires, the plaintiff is reasonable to take the ad as an offer. The court next considered if the mistake was genuine. The court finds that the defendant satisfied the requirements for a rescission of the contract. The significant error in price is a mistake regarding a basic assumption.
3.Issue Is the appropriation of someone's identity without consent considered an invasion of the right to privacy? 4.Holding Yes. The United States Court of Appeals of the ninth circuit ruled that even though Vanna White's name or exact likeness wasn't used in Samsung Electronics, Inc's advertisement, the company left little doubt regarding the identity of the celebrity it was trying to and intended to make profits from the advertisement without the permission of Vanna White herself. Upheld. 5.Court's Reasoning A.
The district court said this because the school’s disruptive conduct rule was vague and did not specifically say what and what was not disruptive. Also the court said that removing Frasers name from the graduation speaker’s list violated the Fourteenth Amendment because Bethel Highs disciplinary rule never said that violating their disruptive conduct rule would result in the removal of speaking at the ceremony. The district court then awarded Fraser $278 in damages, $12,750 in litigation costs and attorneys fees, and said that the school district could not prevent Fraser from speaking at the commencement ceremonies. The school then took the case to the court of appeals in which they upheld the District Courts decision. They upheld the district courts ruling because it said under the Tinker V. Des Moines schools couldn’t punish a student for speech unless it disrupts education.
Addressing International Legal and Ethical Issues Simulation Summary Your Name LAW 421 September 11, 2012 Your Instructor What are the issues involved in resolving legal disputes in international transactions? Any time there are contracts with other countries, there has to be some kind of clause for resolving legal disputes. Additionally the clause must include some type of enforcement to ensure resolution (Melvin, 2011) What are some practical considerations of taking legal action against a foreign business partner in another country? Since United States law is only enforceable in United States courts, the laws of the foreign country must be taken into consideration. Because the law of the foreign country is the only law that can be enforceable contracts are only as good as the backing of the country's backing and are only binding in that instance.
Then, the company also argue that Mrs. Carlill did not make an acceptance or agreement to the offer, as one of a contract element. But the court concluded that she did accept the offer by buying and using the product as directed. Lastly, the company argued there was no communication between them to do an acceptance or agreement. But then, once again, the court did not agree with them and said that it was a unilateral contract and the communication of acceptance did not have to be made. Therefore, to the case of Karen with the Slim Sally’s ad, it can be concluded as a unilateral contract, not an invitation to treat.
Amid this hostility against the student-held prayers, the Supreme Court debated whether this practice violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause prohibited the preference by the U.S Government of one religion over another. Furthermore, this clause declared that preferential religious actions held in public domains were unconstitutional. Although this clause prohibited public religious invocations, it did not prohibit religious practices within enclosed settings. After analyzing the case and calling for several holdings, on June 19th of the year 2000 the Supreme Court decided that these practices were indeed a violation to the United States Constitution.
Procedural History: Katz had moved to have the evidence suppressed under the Fourth Amendment, which was denied by the trial court. Katz appealed the trial court’s decision to the court of appeals, which upheld the conviction and held that the evidence was admissible on the grounds that there was no physical entry into the phone booth by the agents. History: Charles Katz was convicted under a federal statute of transmitting wagering information by telephone across state lines. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and reversed.
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.
AJ Ayer in his book “language, truth and Logic” outlines what is commonly called the “emotivist” approach to ethical language. This approach supports the idea that ethical language is subjective. Ayer suggests that unless propositions and use of language is analytic or synthetic, such propositions carry no cognitive meaning. This approach to philosophical and ethical language (the concern of Analytic philosophy) was called the “verification principle” and was a development of David Hume’s work, “Hume’s fork”. Ethical statements, Ayer said, cannot be verified analytically or synthetically so the truth of such phrases is unknowable and the language used is non-cognitive.