Margolin Case: Funny Face And Novelty Now

762 Words4 Pages
The rules of jurisdiction dictate that a legally valid decision must have two types of jurisdiction in court – personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Personal jurisdiction determines if the court has a power over particular defendant and subject matter jurisdiction allows the court to hear the type of case involved. Federal and state laws limit court’s jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction rules require that facts exist to make it possible for an outside court to exercise power over a resident of another state to protect a defendant from being sued in a “hostile” court. Before a court can exercise power over a resident of another state, the rules require that the defendant has minimum contact with the forum in which the court resides. In this case, Donald Margolin’s suit against Funny Face and Novelty Now will have jurisdiction over them because there has been minimum contact between the parties because the contact has been made…show more content…
The “Who“ are the parties in the case – Donald Margolin and his company, Novelty Now, and Funny Face, and Chris, co-owner of the Funny Face. The “Purpose” of the case would be to seek compensation for health fraud and physical damages. Ethical considerations of the case would be to try and Make Funny Face/Novelty Now to be honest about using non-FDA approved chemical, to make the company recall their products made with PYR, and compensates Mr. Margolin appropriately for his damages. Hopefully, both parties can strike a deal during the negotiation or arbitration process which is fair and would prevent Funny Face/. Novelty Now from producing dangerous products. However, if many people have suffered from the product, a class action suit may be initiated because there is no guarantee that some other clients would not experience skin discoloration and it would make it very costly for the company to

More about Margolin Case: Funny Face And Novelty Now

Open Document