Dixon Trucking Co. should bring the lawsuit to U.S. District Court; his claim will be that the federal law preempted Texas’ statute. The Court will review the Dixon’s claim and find that the federal law must preempt Texas’ efforts to mandate Z-hitches. The decision for this case will weigh heavily on the combined effect of the Supremacy clause and the Commerce clause which invalidates the state of Texas statue which requires a Z-hitch to be installed on every truck and trailer. If the state of Texas is allowed to make this type of requirement on trucks and trailers, it may lead to other states making their own guidelines and regulations for trucks, trailers, and other carrier
According to the Commerce Clause the state statute is unconstitutional because it is a burden on interstate commerce to the state of Confusion. This law prohibits B-type hitch fittings. Only one manufacturer in the state of Confusion makes this type of hitch. This creates problems such as expense, complications of trade, time consumption, and business transactions. Because of all these problems along with unconstitutional barriers through this statute, there is a significant chance that Tanya will win this case.
The federal government can also control exchange in a situation when it has an effect on interstate progress of supplies and provisions and may strike down state proceedings which are obstacles to such movements (2012). Is The Confusion Statue Constitutional? Discuss Your Legal Reasoning Under the meaning of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit stresses a “case of controversy.” Although states have the authority to set their own statues, some of them can cause distress and have to be evaluated by advanced courts. The state of Confusion is using the undemanding fact that the trucks have to drive through their state and are advancing from them economically. They are not requiring the B-type hitch to guard the roadways and are exclusively requiring the hitch to generate additional profits.
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. A country can stop all transactions from that business if they file lawsuit on that country (Melvin, 2011). What factors could work against CadMex's decision to grant sublicensing agreements? An organization that has too many sublicensing agreements and does not have sufficient sub paragraphs could find difficulties enforcing the sublicensing agreement. The organization could experience lawsuits if any of the contracted workers have any problems and could leave the organization liable for damages When the local customs and laws conflict with the customs and laws of an organization operating abroad which should prevail?
The Confusion Paper By: \ Class: Business Law Instructor: February 27, 2012 * Introduction This paper will be looking at the case that came forward to the state of Confusion by Tanya Trucker. Tanya Trucker is the owner of a company in a state named Denial and she is not happy with the cost the statue is making her business pay. The state Confusion have passed a statute entailing all the trucks and trailers that tow use the state's public roads to use a B-type truck hitch. The issue that Tanya Trucker has is that she would have to buy these hitches to go through this one state or take an alternate route around the state of Confusion. Tanya Trucker lives in the state of Denial and she is introducing a complaint against the
If the truckers needed to weld these new mud flaps onto their trucks it would meaning loading and unloading their cargo. The time required to do these tasks would seriously interfere with interstate commerce. Congress usually does not step in when it comes to states making statutes about their highways. But when the statute interferes with interstate commerce, Congress may step in and turn the statue down as in the case of Bibb v Navajo Freight Lines in 1959 (FindLaw, 2011). If Tanya Trucker mentions this case to the court then they may consider the facts of that case and how they relate the case involving the state of Confusion and
(More Law) In Del Core’s view, she felt the defendant’s untimely manner in informing her of her brother’s death would foreseeably hinder her from making proper arrangements for her brother’s burial. In order to show a legal duty was made, the plaintiff would need to establish foreseeability and a determination on the basis of public policy analysis. To establish
Menard Inc v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 08-2125 (United States Court of Appeals March 10, 2009 ). Section 501. (2010). Retrieved October 10, 2010, from http://www.labyrinthinc.com/sharedcontent/sec501.asp?Page=5&subs=6 Siegel, B.