Homework Help

Business Law Chapter 2 Homework Auto Stiegler Argued Part That The Provision

Page Count
5 pages
Word Count
2262 words
Book Title
Business Law: Text and Cases 14th Edition
Frank B. Cross, Kenneth W. Clarkson, Roger LeRoy Miller
2-1A. Arbitration
The public policy that the court weighed in making its decision included the policy of “not
tolerating the knowing misappropriation of state funds by state officials or employees,” as well
2-2A. Arbitration
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the arbitration award, requiring Exxon to
reinstate Fris, should be vacated as contrary to public policy. The court reasoned that the
2-3A. Jurisdiction
The North Carolina state court held that it had personal jurisdiction over the Florida defendants.
State. When a corporation purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities in
this State, it is not unreasonable to subject it to suit here.” The court pointed out that Health
2-4A. Standing to sue
The court held that the Blues had standing and denied the tobacco companies’ motion to
dismiss the case. The defendants argued in part that any injury to the plaintiffs was indirect and
too remote to permit them to recover, and that it would be too difficult to determine whether the
plaintiffs’ injuries were due to the defendants’ conduct or to intervening third causes. The court
2-5A. E-Jurisdiction
The court denied Boyer’s motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. “[T]he
likelihood that personal jurisdiction can be constitutionally exercised [in the context of Internet
activities] is directly proportionate to the nature and quality of commercial activity that an entity
conducts over the Internet.” Boyer “posted Internet messages on the Yahoo bulletin board,
2-6A. Arbitration
The court denied Auto Stiegler’s motion. A state intermediate appellate court reversed this
ruling, and Little appealed to the California Supreme Court, which held that the appeal provision
was unenforceable but which also held that the provision could be cut from the agreement and
the agreement could then be enforced. Auto Stiegler argued in part that the “provision applied
2-7A. Jurisdiction
The court denied Sharman’s motion to dismiss. The court explained that fairness consists
principally of ensuring that jurisdiction over a person is not exercised absent fair warning that a
particular activity may subject that person to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign.” Thus, “the
touchstone constitutional inquiry is whether the defendant’s conduct and connection with the
forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” In this
case, “Sharman provides its KMD software to millions of users every week . . . . Sharman has
not denied and cannot deny that a substantial number of its users are California residents, and
anticipate being haled into court in California. However, jurisdiction is reasonable for an
important added reason: Sharman’s effective predecessor, Kazaa BV, was engaged in this very
2-8A. Standing to sue
This problem concerns standing to sue. As you read in the chapter, to have standing to sue, a
party must have a legally protected, tangible interest at stake. The party must show that he or
she has been injured, or is likely to be injured, by the actions of the party that he or she seeks to
29A. Arbitration
Based on a recent holding by the Washington state supreme court, the federal appeals court
held that the arbitration provision was unconscionable and therefore invalid. Because it was
2-10A. Jurisdiction
Courts apply a minimum-contacts test to determine if they can exercise jurisdiction over out-of-
state corporations. The test is usually met if a corporation advertises or sells its products within

Trusted by Thousands of

Here are what students say about us.

Copyright ©2022 All rights reserved. | CoursePaper is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university.