Unit 5 WK 5 Homework
Rymario1
Homework5Unit5Wk5.docx
· Answer: Chapter 13 - Questions 4, 5, 7.
4. On August 6, 1998, Mr. Ruvolo purchased two chicken gordita sandwiches from Taco Bell. While eating the second sandwich, he felt a sharp pain in his throat and dislodged a chicken bone. The bone caused a scrape in his throat, and, as a result, he was treated at an emergency room. The following day, Mr. Ruvolo was diagnosed with acute tonsillitis, pharyngitis, sinusitis, and gastritis.
Mr. Ruvulo sued Taco Bell and its food distributors, alleging that the infections were due to the chicken bone’s scratching his throat and causing an opening where germs and bacteria could enter. He further alleged that Taco Bell and its food distributors were liable because of their failure to properly inspect the chicken.
5. Nintendo’s Wii video game system features games with simulation of tennis and boxing. To play the game, the players use a motion-sensitive controller in their hand. When playing the game, some players, in making the motions necessary for the sport, have lost control of their controllers. The controllers have crashed into other objects, including television sets, and injured the players. Players who have been injured brought a class action suit against Nintendo for a defective wrist strap on the controllers, designed to keep the controllers from flying out of control. Could there be remedies for the design of the physical equipment used with computers? [Elvig v Nintendo of America, Inc., 696 F. Supp. 2d 1207 (D. Colo. 2010)]
Ms. Hubbs did not follow the instructions in the product to adjust its sensitivity. As a result of continual hard clapping, Ms. Hubbs broke her wrists. Ms. Hubbs also did not follow the product instructions to use (buy) a clicker available for the product if clapping is a chore. She sued the Clapper’s manufacturer for breach of the warranty of merchantability. Should she recover? [Hubbs v Joseph Enterprises, 604 N.Y.S.2d 292 (1993)]
· Answer: Chapter 14 - Case 14.1 Brief and answer questions, Questions 2, 3, 10.
Case 14.1 must be put in I.R.A.C format
Issue:
Rule:
Analysis:
Conclusion:
2. Booklocker, Inc., is a print-on-demand (POD) book company that specializes in handling the printing of a run of books when there is an online order for those books. Amazon.com facilitated such orders by having customers pay up front for a print run and then placing the order with a POD company. Amazon is the dominant channel for those who wish to order books that are not available for immediate purchase but must be done through a POD. In April 2005, Amazon acquired Book- Surge, another POD company. BookSurge’s prices are generally higher than those of other POD companies. On February 10, 2008, Amazon began notifying publishers that Amazon would only continue to sell POD books through the Direct Amazon Sales Channel if the publisher agreed to print its books through BookSurge. If publishers and authors wanted to have the POD sales, they had to use Amazon’s printing company. (Brick-and- mortar retailers such as Barnes & Noble do not handle PODs.) Are there any antitrust issues with this requirement? [BookLocker.com, Inc. v Amazon.com, Inc., 650 F. Supp. 2d (D. Me. 2009)]
3. Amanda Reiss had completed her residency in ophthalmology in Portland, Oregon, and was moving to Phoenix, Arizona, to start her practice. She began looking for office space and met with a leasing agent who showed her several complexes of medical suites. Dr. Reiss was ready to sign for one of them when the leasing agent turned to her and said, “Oh, by the way, you’re not one of those advertising doctors, are you? Because they don’t want that kind in any of my complexes.” Has there been a violation of the antitrust laws?
10. Systems and Software, Inc. (SAS), located in Colchester, Vermont, designs, develops, sells, and ser- vices software that allows utility providers to organize their data, including customer information, billing, work management, asset management, and finance and accounting. In August 2002, SAS hired Randy Barnes as an at-will employee to become a regional vice president of sales. At the time he commenced work for SAS, Barnes signed a noncompetition agreement that, among other things, prohibited him—during his employment and for six months thereafter—from becoming associated with any business that competes with SAS. In April 2004, Barnes voluntarily left his position with SAS and started a partnership with his wife called Spirit Technologies Consulting Group. Spirit Technologies’ only customer was Utility Solutions, Inc., which, like SAS, services municipalities and utilities nationwide with respect to customer-information-systems software. Shortly after Barnes left SAS, he represented Utility Solutions at a trade fair in a booth near SAS’s booth and identified himself as Utility Solution’s sales director.
SAS filed suit requesting injunctive relief and enforcement of the noncompetition agreement. Barnes says that the effect of enforcement of the clause is to prevent him from working for six months and stopping competition in Vermont. Who is correct on the noncom- petition agreement? Is it valid? Why or why not? [Systems and Software, Inc. v Barnes, 886 A.2d 762, (Vt. 2005)]
