Part 2: Pulling It Together
1. Since Mayes is from Indiana, there is diversity, so suit was filed in federal district court in
TMT sued for trademark infringement—using the TMT name without paying royalties
and in violation of the franchise agreement, even after told it was terminated. The court held for
Mayes counterclaimed that TMT violated the Indiana Deceptive Franchise Practice Act.
The court held that even if that were the case, there would be no justification to continue to use
2. She sued McDonald’s Corporation. Since it is a foreign corporation, the case could have been
filed in federal court in Oregon, but she filed in state court, which is proper since McDonald’s
does business there. She could sue the parent corporation, which in fact she did, and the owner of
3. Suit would be filed in state court since all actions took place in one locale. Advanced had
every reason to believe it would be paid for the work done. It need not inquire into the ownership
of the building. The court looked to the terms of the lease. The landlord was liable for plumbing
4. The jury found for Erlichs. They were awarded $406,700 for repairs. They were each awarded
$50,000 for emotional distress and Barry was awarded $50,000 for pain and suffering and
$15,000 for lost earnings. The California high court held that contract damages are generally
5. Affirmed. To assert the right of publicity, plaintiff need not be a celebrity, but must show that
there is value in associating an item of commerce with his identity. Misappropriation of
plaintiff’s identity may be sufficient evidence of commercial value. Here, plaintiff could not
6. Reversed. “Property rights are not created by the Constitution, but by independent sources,
such as state law. In Texas, property rights are considered ‘sacred and fundamental.’ The
7. The arbitration provision is unconscionable under 2-302 and so is unenforceable. The high
cost of ICC arbitration serves to deter buyers from invoking arbitration, effectively leaving them
8. Brice wins on both counts. To win on qauntum meruit, a claimant must show 1) his
performance of valuable services; 2) performance was knowingly accepted by defendants; 3)
defendants’ receipt of services without compensation would be unjust, and 4) claimant had good
9. Reversed. The debt arose from the fraud of the innocent partners’ associate. The innocent
partners are vicariously liable for the debt and so the debt may not be discharged in bankruptcy.