Widget Corporation: Substantive And Procedural Law

1687 Words7 Pages
The suit against Widget Corporation contains several substantive and procedural law aspects that should be examined. Substantive law provides rules that tell society how to appropriately interact with one another and with those in authority. Procedural law provides the rules about how to proceed in addressing a violation of substantive law. Examples of substantive law include:
• Do not drive in excess of a posted speed limit.
• Do not drive through an intersection on a red light.
• Do not discard trash on private property.
Unless the substantive law in question is of a criminal nature, only a preponderance of evidence is required for a decision to be made. A criminal requires evidence so that the final decision, whether by judge or jury,
…show more content…
According to procedural law, the suit could be filed in any of the states in the country, except for the ones in which the plaintiffs and defendant reside. The plaintiff is likely to file in Texas, but Widget Corporation could object to this under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment since it has no physical presence in Texas. It is unfair to allow a case to be held in a state in which the defendant has no ties. This is to protect the defendant from the possibility of giving an advantage to the plaintiff by having a local judge and jury reviewing a case. The plaintiff could argue that Widget Corporation does have a presence in Texas under so-called “long arm statutes”. Widget Corporation could counter argue that it does not meet the long arm statues, but this is likely to fail, as set in precedent cases such as in Burger King Corp vs. Rudzewicz (1985). This is making the assumption that Widget Corporation does not have any retail or distribution outlets in Texas. Because the client selected Widget Corporation for the widgets, even though there are known retail locations in Texas, it can be assumed that Widget Corporation is advertising in Texas. In the aforementioned case (Burger King Corp vs. Rudzewicz, 1985), the act of advertising met the long arm statutes. If this indeed were the ruling, then the plaintiff could still file in Texas. If the court decided that it did not meet the long arm statutes, the plaintiff would have to file in a different

More about Widget Corporation: Substantive And Procedural Law

Open Document