Running head: LEGAL ENVIRONMENT FOR BUSINESS 1
LEGAL ENVIRONMENT FOR BUSINESS 7
Legal environment for Business:
Title: Roy Vs Melissa
The Facts of the case: The parties involved in this case include Melissa, Roy and Jake. Melissa is the owner of the copyright covering the sale and distribution of dolls. Roy is the initial client that Melissa intends to sell the copyright to but they do not sign an agreement with Melissa to imply that he has purchased the copyright. On the other hand, Jake is also an interested party in buying Melissa’s patent and convinces her to sign a formal agreement granting him the exclusive rights. The three parties’ dispute over who is the right owner of the copyright.
Proceedings Below: The lower courts may have incorporated the fact that Jake acquired the copyright maliciously and so ruled in favor of Roy. Conversely, Roy will lose his rights over the patent since there are no legal statements confirming that he received the copyright from Melissa.
The Question before the court: The question before the court is whether the law permits copyright transfers without any legally binding agreement. In this case, the specific legal question is what the law considers as the legal procedure for the reassignment of copyrights. Therefore, Roy must understand that a convention does not exist simply because there is a concurrence between him and Melissa. Additionally, such a contract for the sale of copyright must have a requirement of writing and must be signed by both parties for it to be legally binding. Conversely, it is important to realize that in the situation of Melissa and Roy, there was an element of offer and acceptance.
Holding: The rule that applies to the issues in this case is the components of a valid contract. As such, a legitimate agreement must be signed and at least must be witnessed by a third party in order to be legally binding.
Reasoning: The law requires that people analyze the contents and the obligations that makes the transfer of ownership lawful before getting into a contract. As such, it was Roy’s duty to ensure that he gets to sign an agreement showing that the copyright has legally been transferred to him. Further, entering into a contract by a word of mouth presents loop holes for the provider of the proposal to practice deception.
Concurrence: From the foregoing, Roy loses the copyright title to Jake. Consequently, Roy must understand the legal issues that entail the transfer of copyrights and the shift of ownership. Due to his ignorance, the case is ruled in favor of Jake.
Dissents; The Supreme Court conceded the fact that an agreement created by a word of mouth is insufficient to give enough proof that an agreement actually exists ( Sales, 2001)
Case Title; Consumers Vs the Beard town Ladies Common sense Investment Guide Publishers
Facts of the Case: The case involves a client who takes legal action on behalf of other consumers who purchased a book and the book publisher. The complainant is a customer who feels that the book called “The Beards town ladies’ Common sense Investment Guide” publishers violates the state’s statute against deceptive advertisements. On the other hand, the defendant is the book publisher.
Proceedings below: It is clear that in this case, the publisher has used misleading information in the book. Customer deception is equivalent to fraud and is categorized under the laws governing fraudulent dealings. However, the lower courts may treat the incident as a motivational marketing tool by the publisher, which is not in the actual sense.
The Question before the Court: The court will have to ascertain whether the publisher included or depicted an expression or phrases in the book to show that the figures used in the manuscript were only meant to motivate and inspire the clients. The law requires that consumers are provided with actual information concerning various products and services. Therefore, providing customers with false information in order to make sales is unlawful
Holding: In a California court, the court held that producers of commodities who offer forged details to clients act in the same manner as burglars. Although, the majority may argue that exaggerated facts in a book’s content may not do much harm to clients, the basic legal question in this scenario is the impact of the false details to the recipients.
Reasoning: A law protecting the consumers of products requires that they are supplied with accurate and detailed information concerning the commodities in question. Thus, exempting the publisher from this rule will mean that the court violates the rules of the land. Additionally, publishing a book with false content does not only harm the clients but also violates the laws governing the set standards of quality.
Concurrence: The publisher pleads guilty of issuing the client’s with false information. On the contrary, the publisher can defend himself by arguing that the consumers are not patient enough to exercise the procedures contained in the book. Further, he can maintain that he has employed the steps contained in the book and achieved the results that he published.
Dissent: The Judges disagreed with the majority’s reasoning on the publisher’s innocence since he did not indicate that the figures he published in the book were imaginary. Consequently, his actions amounted to deceit (Ruder, 2002).
Case Title: Make’s Scent Inc., Vs Dab-it-On, Inc.,
The Facts of the Case: The parties involved in this case are the Make’s Scent inc., and its former employee and the Dab-it-on, Inc,. The case involves a former employee of Make’s Scents Inc., who allegedly exposed the trade secrets of his previous employer to his new company Dab-it-on.
Proceedings of the case: In a similar case, the accused contended that a trade secret cannot be composed mainly of matters within the public domain. However, the court ruled out the reasoning holding that the fact that some or all of the components of the trade secrets are well-known does not disqualify the protection for a secret combination, collection, or incorporation of the individual fundamentals.
The Questions before the court: The court will establish whether Make’s Scent Inc had measures in place to ensure its trade secret protection. Some of the necessary measures include giving oaths to employees so as to ensure that they do not release the enterprise’s secrets to the competitors even after they cease working for the organization.
Holding: In a similar scenario, the court ruled that hiring workers from competitor’s firms in order to get secret information from them was illegal.
Reasoning: By a simple act of rival firms acquiring trade secrets of their rivals kills the competitive advantage of the opponent firms in the market. Consequently, the business which illegally learns of the competitor’s trade secrets employs them to imitate and overcome it in terms of performance and effectiveness. Additionally, exposing a company’s trade secrets by its employees takes away the value of the money they spent in constructing the superior systems and can result in the collapse of the business.
Important Concurrence: All the Supreme Court judges agree to the fact that obtaining a competitor’s trade secrets violates the trade laws. Therefore, Makes Scents, Inc. will be able to secure an injunction against both the former employee and Dab-it-On. The employee will be liable for abusing the pledge not to share his former employer’s secrets. On the other hand, Dab-it-on will be liable for using its competitor’s trade information without authority (Besen, & Raskind, 2009).
Dissenting: None of Importance
Case Title: Leslie Vs Aaron
The Facts of the Case: Leslie is the petitioner who files a suit against Aaron. Aaron is a physician licensed to practice medicine in Arizona. However, Leslie, who is a California resident saw a television interview with Aaron and contacted his office in Arizona about a surgical procedure, which Aaron performed on her in Arizona. However, the surgery resulted in significant complications and Leslie sued Aaron in California for malpractice and other torts.
Proceedings below: A court of appeal in Missouri handled a related case and held that the doctor did not act beyond his capacity given that the surgical procedures were conducted in a country where he was authorized to operate. As such, the Missouri court invalidated the case finding no violation of Missouri’s laws. Similarly, in this case, the doctor did not provide the services in California, but in Arizona where he is permitted to work.
The Questions before the court: The court must determine the location where the surgery was conducted, and whether Aaron acted beyond the powers bestowed on him to conduct the surgical procedure.
Holding: A similar case in the Missouri court of appeal was dismissed following the argument that the Missouri court did not have personal jurisdictions over the doctor who was licensed to operate in Kansas. For that reason, the court held that the doctor did not provide the services in Missouri.
Reasoning: Despite the fact that the operation on Leslie was unsuccessful, the doctor did not violate the laws of California. Additionally, he acted within the powers bestowed on him by the Arizona state. Further, the tort alleged in this case did not occur in California, but in Arizona, where the surgery took place.
Important Concurrence: It was unanimously agreed by all the Supreme Court judges that physicians who act within their jurisdiction cannot be held liable for damages arising thereafter. Therefore, Aaron can successfully argue his case out by articulating that he did not violate any Arizona laws and only acted within his powers. Nevertheless, Aaron did not advertise his services in California but was only the subject of an interview on television that was seen by Leslie. Consequently, that does not create sufficient contact with California to create jurisdiction (Epstein, 2006).
Dissenting: None of Importance
Case Title: Mrs. Jenkins Vs the Taxicab Company
The Facts of the Case: A taxi driver working for the Taxi Company now the defendant in this case, jumped from the taxi when an armed thief entered the taxi demanding to be driven away while being pursued by his victim. The taxi driver left the cab while it was still running and it subsequently ran up and hits the plaintiff Mrs. Jenkins and his two children.
Proceedings below: In this case, the plaintiff filed suit for negligence, alleging that the interest of the public at large should be protected from being threatened by an unattended vehicle. The plaintiff argued that the life of pedestrians is more important than the right of a driver who saved his own life by leaving the car unattended. However, the Courts of appeals have so far dismissed such reasoning’s arguing that personal instincts and the law of nature permits the driver to behave in that manner in such a situation.
The Questions before the court: In such a complicated circumstance, the court must determine whether the law holds in an emergency situation to the same degree of judgment that is required of some person under circumstances where he or she has an opportunity for deliberate action.
Holding: In a similar case between Cordas Vs Peerless Transportation Company, the court held, a decision to dismiss the complaint. Likewise, in this scenario, the defendant cannot be held liable since the circumstance at hand could not allow the driver to risk his life.
Reasoning: Holding the defendant liable under the facts within this case would be abolishing the primal law of nature created within each individual. Additionally, the driver has a right to secure himself from harm given the human instincts.
Important Concurrence: The Supreme Court concurred to the fact that the defendant did not act negligibly but rather within his ordinary conscious. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was upheld. Therefore, the cab company is not liable for the damages that Mrs. Jenkins incurred (Rumsey, 2009).
Dissenting: None of importance
Besen, S. M., & Raskind, L. J. (2009). An introduction to the law and economics of intellectual property. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3-27.
Epstein, R. A. (2006). Medical Malpractice, Imperfect Information, and the Contractual Foundation for Medical Services. Law and Contemporary Problems, 201-212.
Ruder, D. S. (2002). Multiple Defendants in Securities Law Fraud Cases: Aiding and Abetting, Conspiracy, In Pari Delicto, Indemnification, and Contribution. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 597-665.
Rumsey, A. (2009). Law of Negligence, The. Law Mag. & L. Rev. 5th ser., 15, 129.
Sales, J. B. (2001). Tort of Interference with Contract: An Argument for Requiring a Valid Existing Contract to Restrain the Use of Tort Law in Circumventing Contract Law Remedies, The. Tex. Tech L. Rev., 22, 123.