Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/shapemygrade/homeworkmarkets.com/wp-content/plugins/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post.php on line 54

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/shapemygrade/homeworkmarkets.com/wp-content/plugins/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post.php on line 59

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/shapemygrade/homeworkmarkets.com/wp-content/plugins/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post.php on line 60

Business Law IGBA 231 St Leo1.) Federal Question- Nutrilab,

Business Law IGBA 231 St Leo1.) Federal Question- Nutrilab, Inc., manufactures and markets a product known as Starch Blockers. The purpose of the product is to block the human body’s digestion of starch as an aid in controlling weight. The U.S. FDA classified Starch Blockers as a drug and requested that it be removed from the market until the FDA approved its use. The FDA claimed that it had the right to classify new products as drugs an prevent their distribution until their safety is determined. Nutrilab disputed the FDA’s decision an wanted to bring suit to halt the FDA’s actions. Do the federal courts have jurisdiction to hear this case? Nutrilab, Inc v Schweiker, 713 f.2d335, Web 1983 U.S. App. Lexis 25121(United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit)2) Forum Selection Clause- Mr. and Mrs. Shute, residents of the state of Washington, purchased passage for a seven-day cruise on the Tropicale, a cruise ship operated by Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc.(Carnival) They paid the fare to the travel agent, who forwarded the payment to Carnival’s headquarters in Miami, Florida. Carnival prepared the tickets and sent them to the Shutes. Each ticket consisted of five pages, including contract terms. The ticket contained a forum-selection clause that designated the state of Florida as the forum for any lawsuits arising under or in connection with the ticket and cruise. The Shutes boarded the Tropicale in Los Angeles, which set sail for Puerto Vallarta, Mexico. While the ship was on its return voyage and in international waters off the coast of Mexico, Mrs. Shute was injured when she slipped on a deck mat during a guided tour o the ship’s gallery. Upon return to the state of Washington, she filed a negligence lawsuit against Carnival in U.S. District Court of in Washington, seeking damages. Carnival defended, arguing that lawsuit could only be brought in a court located in the state of Florida, pursuant to the forum-selection clause contained in its ticket. Is the forum-selection clause in this case enforceable? Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 1522, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622, Web 1991 U.S. Lexis 2221 (Supreme Court of the United States)3) Jurisdiction- James Clayton Allison, a resident of the state of Mississippi, was employed by the Tru-Amp Corporation as a circuit breaker tester. As a part of his employment , Allison was sent to inspect, clean, and test a switch gear located at the South Central Bell Telephone Facility in Brentwood, Tennessee. One day, when he attempted to remove a circuit breaker manufactured by ITE Corporation(ITE) from a bank of breakers, a portion of the breaker fell off. The broken piece fell behind a switching bank and, according to Allison, caused an electrical fire and exploration. Allison was severely burned in the accident. Allison brought suit against ITE in a Mississippi state court, claiming more than $50,000 in damages. Can this suit be removed to federal court? Allison v ITE Imperial Corp.; 729 F. Supp. 45, Web 1990 U.S. Dist. Lexis 607 (United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi)4.) Ethics- One day, Joshua Gnaizda, a 3-year old, received what he (or his mother) thought was a tantalizing offer in the mail from Time, Inc. The front of the envelope contained a see through window that revealed the following statement: ” Joshua Gnaizda, I’ll give you this versatile new calculator watch free just for opening this envelope.” Beneath the offer was a picture of the calculator watch itself. When Joshua’s mother opened the envelope, she realized that the see-through window had not revealed the full text of Time’s offer. Not viewable through the see through window were the following words: ” And mailing this Certificate today.” The certificate required Joshua to purchase a subscription to Fortune magazine in order to receive the free calculator watch. Joshua (through his father, a lawyer) sued Time in a class action lawsuit, seeking compensatory damages in an amount equal to the value of the calculator watch and $15 million in punitive damages. The trail court dismissed the lawsuit as being too trivial for the court to hear. Joshua appealed. Should Joshua be permitted to maintain his lawsuit against Time, Inc? Did Time act ethically? Should Joshua’s father have sued for $15million? Harris v Time, Inc., 191 Cal.App.3d 449, 237 Cal.Rptr.584, Web 1987 Cal. App. Lexis 1619 (Court of Appeals of California)5) Physical Examination- Robert Schlagenhauf worked as a bus driver for the Greyhound Corporation. One night , the bus he was driving rear-ended a tractor-trailer. Seven passengers on the bus were injured and sued Schlagenhauf and Greyhound Corporation for damages. The complaint alleged that Greyhound was negligent for allowing Schlagenhauf to drive a bus when it knew that his eyes and vision “were impaired and deficient.” The plaintiffs petitioned the court to order Schlagenhauf to be medically examined concerning these allegations. Schlagenhauf objected to the examination. Who wins? Schlagenhauf v Holder, 379 U.S.104, 85 S. Ct 234, 13 L.Ed.2d 152, Web1964 U.S. Lexis 152 (Supreme Court of the United States)6) Interrogatories- Cine Forty-Second Street Theratre Corporation operates a movie theater in New York City’s Time Square area. Cine filed a lawsuit against Allied Artists Pictures Corporation, alleging that Allied Artists an local theater owners illegally attempted to prevent Cine from opening its theater, in violation of federal antitrust law. The suit also alleged that once Cine opened the theater, the defendants conspired with motion picture distributors to prevent Cine from exhibiting first-run, quality films. Attorneys for Allied Artists served a set of written questions concerning the lawsuit on Cine Forty-Second Street Theatre Corp. v Allied Artists Pictures Corp., 602 F.2d 1062, Web 1979 U.S. App. Lexis 13586 (United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit)7.) Arbitration-AMF Incorporated and Brunswick Corporation both manufacture electric and automatic bowling center equipment. In 1983, the two companies became involved in a dispute over whether Brunswick had advertised certain automatic scoring devices in a false and deceptive manner. The two parties settled the dispute by signing an agreement that any future problems between them involving advertising claims would be submitted to the National Advertising Council for arbitration. Brunswick advertised a new product, Armor Plate 3000, a synthetic laminated material used to make bowling lanes. Armor Plates 3000 competed with wooden lanes produced by AMF. Brunswick’s advertisements claimed that bowling centers could save up to $500 per lane per year in maintenance and repair costs if they switched to Armor Plate 3000 from wooden lane. AMF disputed this claim and requested arbitration. Is the arbitration agreement enforceable? AMF Incorporated v Brunswick Corp., 621 F.Supp. 456, Web 1985 U.S. Dist. Lexis 14205 (United States District for the Eastern District of New York)8) Ethics- Dennis and Francis Burnham were married in West Virginia. One year later, the couple moved to New Jersey, where their two children were born. After 10 years, the Burnhams decided to separate. Mr. Burnham agreed with Mrs. Burnham to file for divorce on grounds of irreconcilable differences. Later, Mr. Burnham threatened to file for divorce in New Jersey on grounds of desertion. In the meantime, Mrs. Burnham, who had custody of the children, had moved to California. After unsuccessfully demanding that Mr. Burnham adhere to the prior agreement, Mrs. Burnham brought suit for divorce in California state court. One month later, Mr. Burnham visited California on a business trip. He then visited his children in the San Francisco Bay area, where his wife resided. He took older child to San Francisco for the weekend. Upon returning the child to Mrs. Burnham made a special appearance in the California court an moved to quash the service of process. Did Mr. Burnham act ethically in trying to quash the service of process? Did Mrs. Burnham act ethically in having Mr. Burnham served on his visit to California? Is the service of process good? Burnham v Superior Court of California, 495 U.S. 604, 110 S.Ct. 2105, 109 L.Ed.2d 631, Web 1990 U.S. Lexis 2700 (Supreme Court of the United States)


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/shapemygrade/homeworkmarkets.com/wp-content/plugins/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post.php on line 54

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/shapemygrade/homeworkmarkets.com/wp-content/plugins/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post.php on line 59

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/shapemygrade/homeworkmarkets.com/wp-content/plugins/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post/pryc-wp-add-custom-content-to-bottom-of-post.php on line 60