Contracts #4 Model Answer MEMORANDUM OF LAW TO: Chief Operating Officer (COO), Giant Candy Company FROM: Attorney RE: Possibilities of Cost-Savings Due to Questionable Contract DATE: September 16, 2005 QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Is there a flaw in the consideration of the contract that would allow Giant to stop honoring the contract and allow it to buy from another vendor? 2. What could Little do, if anything, to cure any alleged flaw in the consideration? 3.
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
Probable Cause Article Summary In order to issue to a search warrant, a judge must sign the order and authorize and obtain the specifics along with the location. The search warrant is only good for the specified location, so if the warrant specifies the garage at a certain address, authorities cannot search the inside of the home as well. In an article published online regarding the Trayvon Martin case, Reverend Al Sharpton stated he was enforcing the arrest of George Zimmerman regarding the released videos that gave probable cause to arrest him “for obstruction of justice and for filing a false police report if in fact he told police he sustained a broken nose and other injuries” (EurPublisher, 2012). Warrant requirement exceptions can be anything from roadside sobriety checkpoints, which have been court approved but must be done in a fair and organized manner. “For example, it makes little sense to require an officer to obtain a search warrant to seize contraband that is in plain view.
Week 3 IRAC Brief Case In 2011, Apple introduced a navigator and personal assistant called “Siri” that works with Apple’s products. Prior to Apple’s creation, Zhizhen Network Technology introduced a similar software called "Xiao i Robot" in which it sued a California based corporation over in 2004. Apple chief executive officer Tim Cook said in January last year that he expected China to become his company's largest market, though he gave no timeframe (AFP, 2014). Apple has initiated a lawsuit against Zhizhen Network Technology over the patent rights for “Siri” but declines to comment on ongoing litigation. Issue The issue concerns intellectual properties of both Apple and Zhizhen Network Technology, and patient infringement on Apple by Zhizhen Network Technology and the State Intellectual Property Office.
DotTV posted an announcement on its Web site asking for bids for rights to the “Golf.tv” domain name and stating that the name would go to the highest bidder. Je Ho Lim submitted a bid for $1,010 and authorized DotTV to charge that amount to his credit card if his bid was the highest. Later, DotTV sent Lim an e-mail message stating that he had “won the auction” and charged the bid price of $1,010 to Lim’s credit card. When DotTV subsequently refused to transfer the name, Lim sued DotTV for, among other things, breach of contract. Lim argued that his bid constituted an ac¬ceptance of DotTV’s offer to sell the name.
Judge Sweet found that none of the methods were tied to any particular machine, nor did they bring about a tangible transformation of anything. Rather, “because the claimed comparisons of DNA sequences are abstract mental processes, they also constitute unpatentable subject matter” (p. 4). Judge Sweet also added that, even if the claims were construed in such a way that they constituted “physical transformations associated with isolating and sequencing DNA, they would still fail the ‘machine or transformation’ test under §101 for subject matter patentability.” (p. 147). Taking it to the Next Level. Where do we go from here?
DotTV posted an announcement on its Web site asking for bids for rights to the “Golf.tv” domain name and stating that the name would go to the highest bidder. Je Ho Lim submitted a bid for $1,010 and authorized DotTV to charge that amount to his credit card if his bid was the highest. Later, DotTV sent Lim an e-mail message stating that he had “won the auction” and charged the bid price of $1,010 to Lim’s credit card. When DotTV subsequently refused to transfer the name, Lim sued DotTV for, among other things, breach of contract. Lim argued that his bid constituted an ac¬ceptance of DotTV’s offer to sell the name.
A major increase in sales between 2000 and 2006 has made Hotel Chocolat’s competitors eager to find the key to the company’s success, leaving the founders to face the challenge of how to protect the business from plagiarism. Trademarking its name and all its products, although a widely-used defence mechanism, is not a satisfying solution here; with 30% of its products replaced by another annually in order to meet the demands of its customers and continuous product range expansions, it would become a burden, adding administrative costs and bureaucracy. Now a luxury provider, the company started in 1980s supplying mints, before moving to chocolate and, finally, rebranding in 2003 as Hotel Chocolat. With own cocoa plantation, 11 retail shops in popular tourist locations, a call centre and an online store, Hotel Chocolat is now reaching customers in the UK, USA and in Europe, with aspirations to become one of the world’s top chocolate brands. Despite these developments, Hotel Chocolat is not interested in offering department store concessions or own-label goods and wants to keep the number of its high street shops to the minimum in order to retain its premium brand image and uniqueness as well as keeping full control over staff training and storing conditions of its products.
citizens are entitled to there are always exemptions. This would be a case to case basis and would all depend on the circumstances of each case to discreatly say what information may have been obtained to harm someone. As far as blaming the author, we all have the right to freedom of speech but when it comes to the “how-to” manuals, there should be some type of limitations on what can be published and what can’t. We will never be able to control the many methods of communications that have been and will be sent in place for those who choose to use the internet. This information can be passed on through social websites, blogs, etc.
It is just a concept socially constructed by human beings. Because it is in our human nature to be judgmental, we automatically cateogrize people into groups. No scientist in this world has proven the existance of race; what makes our human bodies differ is the adaptions to our surroundings, but we are all technically the same. For example, chocolate that is put into a fridge is no different than chocolate that is left out in the sun and melted. Both are still chocolate.