Tina Bruce Case Study

1287 Words6 Pages
CASE 35-1. In this case, Tina Bruce invented a device that prevents breast milk leakage from nursing mothers, called lilypadz breast shields. To commercialize the idea, she formed an Ohio Limited liability company called Me & My Kidz, L.L.C. and to produce the breast shields she contacted Thermodyn and entered into a nondisclosure agreement which prohibited Thermodyn from disclosing Me & My Kidz trade information and from competing. Despite the agreement, a Thermodyn employee used the confidential information to begin launching a competing product, called SheShells Breast Coverlets. The president of Thermodyn claimed the relationship between Thermodyn and Me & My Kidz was a joint venture and threatened to stop production unless…show more content…
For the first element, which is to prove a joint contract, Thermodyn presented a letter and a document named “Thermodyn and M&MK Relationship” as proof. M&MK argued that Thermodyn presented insufficient facts to establish the existence of a joint venture and that the document cannot be interpreted as a joint contract because they do not satisfy the requirements of a contract under Ohio law. The Court disagreed stating that it is not necessary to show that the parties formally exchanged promises and that a contract implied In fact may be proved by showing that the circumstances surrounding the parties’ transactions make it reasonably certain that an agreement was…show more content…
The agreement established that she could not sell in retail establishments, only at home demonstrations parties. Isbell later became a unit sales director, and in addition to serving as a beauty consultant, she recruited other beauty consultants. She earned commissions based on her sales as well as on the sales of the consultants she recruited. Then, she rented a space in a shopping mall to serve as a training center. Later, Mary Kay’s legal coordinator contacted Isbell, stating that the store space was not to be used to sell Mary Kay products and was told to cease all photo sessions of potential customers and to stop advertising glamour tips. The following year, the vice-president of sales notified Isbell that Mary Kay was terminating its agreement with her, Isbel filed suit claiming that Mary Kay violated the Franchise Practices Act by refusing to comply with the FPA provisions for termination of a franchise. A trial court granted summary judgment to Isbell, but it did not explain why Isbell’s relationship with Mary Kay could be considered a franchise. The trial court ruled as a matter of law that Mary Kay’s termination had violated the Act, and awarded money to

More about Tina Bruce Case Study

Open Document