Federal courts - Assignment Example

LAW ASSIGNMENT Case One Q Answer: c This is because the jurisdiction of federal courts is more extensive than that of courts. Federal courts are not limited by boundaries like state courts as they cover the entire area under the federal government (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). In addition, diversity jurisdiction also allows cases with damages of over $75,000 to be filed in federal courts. Q #2 Answer: b The long arm statute allows courts to have jurisdiction over companies and people in other states, although this is limited. In this case, the personal jurisdiction limits determine where individuals are to be tried based on connections and residence (Dine & Koutsias, 2012), meaning a court in Colorado cannot make a resident of Mexico, for example, to come to court in Colorado. Q #3 Answer: d The fact that she is a minor fails to impact on the agency relationship she had with Windell (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). In addition, while the minor can still rescind the contract if she feels it is wrong. Q #4 Answer: b Sole proprietorships in business have unlimited liability, which means that their owners are normally held responsible personally for the business’ obligations and debts (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). Thus, lenders may seize the personal assets of the owner in order to effect payment for the debts and obligations. Q #5 Answer: d The website and the advertisement resulted in an express warranty, indicating that all expenses would include a queen sized bed, three daily meals, and all expenses. The contract was entered into on the basis of mistaken material fact that the hotel was aware of being untrue. Finally, written disclaimers under the UCC require all disclaimers to be displayed conspicuously for them to be held as valid (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). Q #6: Short Answer Common law deals with employment contracts, intangible assets, insurance, service, and real estate. On the other hand, UCC deals with transactions involving sale of goods, contracts, leases, and borrowing money. UCC mainly covers commercial transactions carried out between the states in the US and US territories. The court is most likely to apply UCC because offers made by companies cannot be revoked if in writing, especially when common law disallows option contract revocation (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). In addition, whereas contracts under UCC can be modified in the absence of any more consideration, under common law, contracts are only modified with additional consideration. Q #7 Essay Negligence refers to harm caused to other parties by failing to utilize reasonable care (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). Jones will be successful against Jennifer as she did something that reasonable would not do. In addition, she would also be successful against Windell Hotel because they failed to take action that a reasonable individual would to avoid harm to Jones. Case Study 2 Q #1 Answer: d Anyone admitted into the partnership as a partner has liability for the partnership’s obligations prior to their admission (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). This makes as if the individual was a partner prior to the incurrence of the obligations. However, the liability is only satisfied out of property owned by the partnership. Q#2 Answer: d Various factors that indicate the existence of a partnership in law are the full time business involvement, contribution of capital, access to the partnership’s information, management participation, and sharing losses and profits (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). Even if a written agreement is absent, this does not mean the absence of a partnership Q#3 Answer: d All general partnership partners have personal liability for the debts incurred by the partnership (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). Thus, every partner must pay a proportionate amount of the debts accrued by the partnership equal to their interest ownership if the partnership cannot repay its debts. Q #4 Answer: a In this case, the employer is vicariously liable for actions by an agent or employee that cause injury (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). Thus, the liability for the actions of an employee is placed on the employer. Q #5 Answer: d A decision taken by any partner normally binds the entire business to a business deal and to contracts (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). In addition, unless outsiders are in the position to know about limitations placed on specific partners within the partnership agreement, any of the partners can bind all other partners to a contract. Q #6: Short Answer HDD can recover their losses through general warranty and implied warranty. Under general warranty, HDD as the buyers of the buns can contend that the buns were not as contracted. This may allow them to bring a lawsuit against Salvo for breach of warranty. With regards to the implied warranty, warranty merchantability contends that goods must be fit for the purposes that they are ordinarily used for (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). The buns with molds, in this case, cannot be used to make hotdogs. Q #7: Essay The 14th Amendment guarantees Joan and Don the freedom to engage and contract in lawful activity without arbitrary or unreasonable government interference under the Due Process Clause. All levels of government in the US are required to operate under the law, while also providing for fair procedures (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). This acts as a safeguard against arbitral denial of property by various levels of the US government through the use of vague laws. Case 3 Q #1 Answer: d Under the best business judgment rule, if directors act in good faith and prudently in their actions and determinations, courts cannot imply liability for resultant changes regarding loss of value or circumstances for the company (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). However, Troll failed to do this as he acted with his personal interests in mind by selling the condo to Yono. Q #2 Answer: b Both federal and state laws legally require disclosures. This means that Troll must disclose all relative and pertinent information to Yono concerning the condo. In case the disclosure was not made, it would present grounds for the contract to be rescinded under the fraud or unconscionability remedy (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). Unconscionable contracts cannot be enforced as no informed person would agree to it otherwise. Q #3 Answer: d The board cannot force Joe to go through arbitration as the employer has already broken the contract with Joe by not giving him 30 days notice (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). In addition, the employer went back on a spoken word to Joe. Q #4 Answer: b A court cannot enforce unconscionable contracts if a contract is breached against Jolly who was treated unfairly based on the theory that she was misled, while she also lacked all the information when signing the contract (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). Similar to an adhesion contract, she has been taken advantage of. Q #5 Answer: a Where oral contracts are reduced to become written contracts in its entirety, the court will consider that the writing has all the terms of the contract (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). Q #6: Short Answer The board cannot sue John for negligence as his position was that of an agent for CCI under the orders of Troll (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). The board in this case cannot prove that John acted in a manner that another reasonable person in the circumstances would not have done. Q #7: Essay Corporations are defined as legal entities that can be held liable for the debts they accrue, which protects their managers and owners (Dine & Koutsias, 2012). However, the owners can be held liable under the corporate veil doctrine, under which shareholders are responsible for liabilities for direct infringement and for the actions of its human agents during the course of the individual’s employment. References Dine, J., & Koutsias, M. (2012). Company law. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Read More