Billy Buyer Case Summary

The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s disability claim. The appellant essential accommodation claim went to trial but court excluded evidence regarding to disability. The plaintiff’s is not estopped by her SSDI and long term disability claims. However the issue should have been decided by jury. The court foreclosed to grant the plaintiff was not a qualified individual.

Additionally, necessities put forward in Section 2-201 must first be fulfilled if the agreement as adjusted is inside of its stipulations. Article II of the Uniform Commercial Code. A case of this segment can be Fairway Mach. Deals Co. v. Mainland Motors Corp., 40 Mich. Application. 270, 198 N.W.2d 757 (1972) (defendant corporation which allegedly did not honor agreement had burden of raising statute of frauds

Michael Packer was in the market for a brand new car. He had been looking at the 2016 Ford Focus RS as well as the 2016 Audi R8 V10 Plus Coupé. After a lot of contemplating, he came to a decision. He went down to the Ford dealer and got a pre-built car because he is an impatient person. He walked around the white shiny showroom and he found the one he wanted, a Nitrous Blue Focus RS.

Plaintiffs (2) (Deoram Sookdeo and Naitram Sookdeo) claim false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution. Plaintiffs state they operate a pawn shop. Plaintiff state during the period of September 24, 2003 and December 10, 2003, they were repeatedly issues summonses by NYPD and threatened with arrest. Plaintiff Deoram Sookdeo alleges he was arrested on September 23, 2003, November 26, 2003, and December 10, 2003.

In this case, regarding the legal validity of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcing an order on Betty’s land, they are within full scope of authority. The EPA issued its order in reference to the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The pond located on Betty Blackacre’s property was deemed as a major migratory location for many birds, including endangered species. Section 9 of the ESA bars the taking of a species. In this instance, the term “take” encompasses any harm of an endangered species or its habitat (Laschever, 2012). This is directly applicable to the land included in the order. Donald’s industrial park would inevitably affect the environment of the endangered birds.

The Smythes contractually agreed to settle any disputes regarding the accounts they had with Providence using arbitration, specifically following the standards of the FINRA. (AA:4) FINRA requires certain disclosures prior to appointing arbitrators. First the parties must give potential arbitrators information about the nature of the dispute, and identify the parties. (FINRA Rule 12405(a)) Then each potential arbitrator must make a reasonable effort to “learn of, and must disclose…any circumstances which might preclude the arbitrator from rendering an objective and impartial determination.” (FINRA Rule 12405(a)) This includes any relationship or circumstances involving members of the arbitrator’s family. (FINRA Rule 12405(a)(3)) In addition to disclosing potential conflicts the arbitrator’s obligation to disclose relationships, or circumstances that might preclude him from rendering an objective and impartial determination is a continuing duty once discovered. (FINRA Rule 12405(b))

The client has the right to terminate the services of SWP upon written notice. Upon termination the client agrees to pay all fees and expenses for legal services provided up until that point. The client is also required to sign a court form stating that they are no long being represented by SWP.

Throughout this case there are many different type of legal theories that can apply to a majority of the characters discussed. To start, Mike Merchant could be indicted of trademark infringement. A trademark is a distinctive mark, symbol, name, word, motto, or device that identifies the goods of a particular business. In the textbook there is a case that references a very similar situation to Mike’s; “When the manufacturer of knockoff goods offers a consumer a cheap knockoff copy of the original manufacturer’s more expensive product, allowing the buyer to acquire the prestige of owning what appears to be the more expensive product, there is infringement”. In reference to the case being studied

The case open date was on Thursday, January 2nd, 2014. United States of America U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division was “the plaintiff” vs Heraeus Electro-Nite Co., Llc. “The defendant”. The complaint was about the company “Heraeus” wanted to acquire the Midwest Instrument Company, Inc. (“Minco”).

The court sided with Drennan that there was no need for consideration to make a promise binding under an unilateral contract. Court also ruled that if there is a mistake that Drennan must know about mistake however, Drennan did not know and had no reason to believe that the bid submitted by Star Paving was a mistake. Star Paving failed to alleviate damages cause and that their argument was meritless (CaseBriefSummary.com, 2013).

NO, EN VOGUE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ENFORCE MS. RAMIREZ’S NON-COMPETE AGREEMENT BECAUSE THEY CANNOT PROVE A LEGITIMATE BUSINSINESS INTEREST EXTIST.

Facts: Beacon (B) and Fox (F) ran movie theaters. B objected to F’s practice of exercising rights to be the first to show a movie before anyone else could. B pursued an anti-trust claim. In response, F sought a judicial declaration that F in fact had not run afoul of anti-trust rules, and that B would be enjoined from pursuing B’s claim until the matter in re the declaration could be heard by the court. But B filed an anti-trust counter claim. The court sided with F, taking the position that it could only adjudicate the F claim before it addressed the B claim, assuming the court decided B had a claim. Not wanting to have the matter split, B filed a writ so the court would hear both matters.

Kate’s claim is that she was wrongfully dismissed from Specialty Detergent and that she should be awarded $500,000 for damages. Kate was not given reasonable notice of her termination from Specialty Detergent; despite of her skills, seniority (14 years of experience with the company), and age (55 years old). However, the other sales representative, Freddie, with 15 years of experience at Specialty Detergent had received a fair severance package with the inclusion of 12 months pay and benefits. Taking into consideration that Freddie and Kate had been working at Specialty Detergent for a similar period of time, had similar duties, and earned similar salaries; they should both receive equivalent severance packages. Additionally, Kate was escorted

Larry Ingram is the CEO of a distribution company and Scott Patterson is a sales person for perfect solutions. Ingram is one of Patterson’s top distributors for Perfect Solution products. Ingram came to find that Patterson gave lower prices to another distribution company called Barber distributing. Patterson lies and says that he gave the same deal, when in actuality he didn’t. In the end, Ingram feels that if Patterson gave them a deal, it’s only right to give his company a deal as well, and if he didn’t, he would take his business to Dymotzue Company, a competitor to Patterson’s company. Ingram asked Patterson for a deal of 2 truckloads of the product Bond-do-Perm, and Patterson lies and says he can get it by the end of the month or even for free. Knowing before the conversation he made a phone call to the manufacturer who told him the products will not be available for two months. He then offers a free product, knowing it’s only for those who are new customers. Patterson feels pressured

Underhill LJ (at 33) claimed that the obligation to pay was the Claimant’s primary obligation. As a response to Underhill LJ, Floyd LJ (at 45, 46 and 48) considered the “root of the contract” test employed by Sachs LJ in Withers v Reynolds (1831) 2 B & Ad 882 and by Buckley LJ in Millars’ Karri and Jarrah Co (1902) v Weddel, Turner & Co ((1908) 100 LT 128 at 129). Floyd LJ (at 57) decided that the breach did not go to the root of the contract and therefore was not repudiatory.