Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Part 4: Pulling It Together
1. Reversed in part. This is not a typical wrongful termination suit. Morrison was also a
shareholder and director of the close corporation. There is a fiduciary duty between the parties.
Absent a clear business purpose, Gugle could not force Morrison from the company. They were
equal shareholders, but Gugle dominated the corporation, including denying Morrison access to
2. The Supreme Court held that there was no antitrust violation. The fact that a product in a tie-in
sale is patented does not create a presumption of market power. For Independent Ink to win, it
3. The court had to determine which law controlled. Since it was found that there was a breach of
warranty, the Lemon Law was irrelevant to the case. The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act had also
been violated; it would take precedent over the state Lemon Law. Since the UCC and M-M
4. Affirmed. A business owner who participated in the creation, development, and
implementation of deceptive business practices of two corporations in the sale of food plans and
freezers to consumers received benefits from the corporations in his capacity as an officer and
5. Reversed. The decision of the arbitrator was valid under the terms of the collective bargaining
agreement and did not violate public policy. The arbitrator’s could rule that the employer acted
arbitrarily and in violation of the collective bargaining agreement. Interpretation of such
