Custom Search

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Five Issues for Potential Final Project for BUL FS Class

Five Issues for the Outline


1.) Misrepresentation

Definition of Term:
Stated facts that are not true and may include guarantees that are unfulfilled.

Why:
My fear is when I’m creating initial agreements or drafts of agreements that the language is off which could create confusion on terms of an agreement that may create a unintentional misrepresentation.

Title of Case

PACRIM ASSOCIATES v. TURNER HOME ENTERTAINMENT INC
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1174942.html


Brief Summary:
This 1998 case deals with an agreement that has international aspects as far as production and distribution. Pacrim believed that they had an official agreement with Turrner Home Entertainment (THE) that made Pacrim THE’s exclusive licensing and merchandising agent in Thailand for a year; Pacrim accused them of “breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud, inter alia” because of an early termination. The court of appeals reversed charges against Pacrim and affirmed the court’s decision that THE did commit Fraud.


2.) Financial Liability
Question for Instructor: Couldn’t find a good case but need help with this one: I want to deal with Korean Investment potentially to raise funds for an event, what cases should I look into?

Definition of Term:
In this case, how other people’s money is handled related to investing in third party companies.

Explain and Why:
Handling investments both domestic and foreign may actually become a reality. Already have been in contact with a CPA to handle domestic taxes, but need more information in drafting agreements.

List Case:
MIGDAL v. ROWE PRICE FLEMING INTERNATIONAL INCORPORATED III
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1236299.html

Brief Summary:

In this case, Applet Court affirmed decision because Migal wanted a “exploratory action” to further their case after evidence was inclusive during trial; however, the court decided that their was no grounds because it would violate other jurisdictions to do so. Thus, the court affirmed the court’s decision.

3.) Trademark Infringement
My concerns relate to the fact we are currently using natural trademark laws and the DMCA (DMCA) to establish a brand and web presence before forming an LLC later this year.

Explain and Why:
Web Presence/Advertisement concerns relate to this case. Meaning, when we put out our brand and IPs, can someone claim infringement based on how similar the design by happen-stance may be.

Definition of Term:
Trademark is a protective mark that helps consumer identify one brand from another. An infringement can include anything that causes confusion for a consumer or market place between brands.

List Case:
NATURAL ANSWERS INC v. SMITHKLINE BEECHAM CORPORATION
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1206578.html

Brief Summary:
In this case, “Natural Answers” is accusing “Smithkline Beeham” of Trademark Infringement over the Internet. Ultimately, the ruling stands that since Natural Answers was using a natural trademark and was not currently doing business, Smithkline Beeham was not infringing on a trademark and can make claim because Natural Answers had not registered a Trademark or was currently doing any current business online.


3.) Product Liability

Definition of Term:
Product liability is when a party is responsible for any incidents or accidents that may be related to the design or development of a product in a market place.

Explain and Why:
We deal with a 12 to 40 year old demographic potentially, so we are not necessarily worried about the classic “Warning Children Under 3: Choking Hazard” found on a lot toy packages. However, even though it may cause branding issues, we are at least going to put some type of warning; the question is “what?”.

List Case:
TUCKER v. DIVISION SALES INC
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1389769.html

Brief Summary:

In 1994, after an autopsy, it was revealed that the suction cup dart lodged in the right bronchus and blocked air in his throat, which caused the child to choke to death. During the Trial, Division Sale violated a “limine” agreement causing the jury to blame the boy’s family and causing the jury to side with Division Sales; thus, The plaintiffs were given another trial based on the “limline” violation.

5.) Wrongful Interference


Definition of Term:
Wrongful Interference means to get in the way of two party’s business agreements or purposely cause a break between business agreements. In this case, Slander may have been used to cause a deal to not happen or continue.

Explain and Why:
Oh my god, that’s all I have to say. Seeing and having some deals at conferences, I see a whole lot of tort cases ready to happen. Even the nature of the Internet is not friendly to Wrongful Interference. Until reading this case, I wasn’t interested in “Slander” as a reason to file a civil case in relation to the tort “Wrongful Interference.”

SNYDER v. SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INChttp://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court-appellate-division/1377113.html

Brief Summary:
Snyder accuses a representative of Sony Music of slander, which caused Snyder to loose contacts and business agreements. Slander was hard to prove; moreover, multiple violations of the firm’s policies were on record. Snyder tried to cross appeal, but his arguments were viewed as “academic” not “factual”, so the court denied his appeals and he lost.






References:

Ruffin, (1998) Pacrim Associates v. Turner Home Entertainment Inc
Retrieved April 9th, 2011 from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ga-court-of-appeals/1174942.html
- November 30, 1998

Wilkinson (2001) Migdal v. Rowe Price Fleming International Incorporated III Retrieved April 9th, 2011 from: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-4th-circuit/1236299.html

Marcus (2008) Natural Answers Inc v. Smithkline Beecham Corporation
April 9th, 2011 from: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-11th-circuit/1206578.html

Holdridge (2000) Tucker v Division Sales Inc, April 9th, 2011 from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/il-court-of-appeals/1389769.html

Mazzarelli, J. (1999) Synder v. Sony Music Entertainment Inc. April 9th, 2011 from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court-appellate-division/1377113.html

No comments:

Post a Comment