The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (MindTap Course List)
10th Edition
ISBN: 9781305967304
Author: Frank B. Cross, Roger LeRoy Miller
Publisher: Cengage Learning
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 24, Problem 3CT
Summary Introduction
Case summary:The company LI sells the only style of catridge which works with the company’s printer. The other companies acquired the used cartridges and refurbished them to sell them in competition with LI. The company offered a twenty percent discount to customers if they returned the used cartridges of the company. The company SSC was involved in making and selling of the remanufactured cartridges. LI released an advertisement to claim that the products sold by the company are violating the patent rights of LI. A legal suit was filed by LI in federal district court for violation of the intellectual property right. The company SSC countered the claim by alleging that the company LI did r false advertisement. The counterclaim was dismissed and the court ordered that company SSC had no right to sue the company LI. Company SSC appealed to the appellate court. The appellate court reversed the decision. The company LI appealed to the supreme court and won.
To find:The judgment when a retraction for the advertisement was issued by LI before the case reached the Supreme court.
Expert Solution & Answer
Want to see the full answer?
Check out a sample textbook solution
Students have asked these similar questions
How did the court evaluate the Prewitt v Numismatic Funding Corporation case?
You are served with Plaintiff's complaint. Plaintiff is suing you! You are furious. Should you ignore Plaintiff's complaint and hope it goes away? Why or why not? What could possibly go wrong? If you do respond to Plaintiff's complaint, should you just deny all of Plaintiff's allegations so Plaintiff will go away, or include something else?
What are the factors which will allow a court to pierce the corporate veil?
Chapter 24 Solutions
The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases (MindTap Course List)
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- It's suspected that the adulterated Magentum some businesses dumped into the sewer is what is responsible for the pollution in our country's lakes and rivers. Some government officials think there should be a new crime recognized related to dumping industrial waste into sewers. What's a legal obstacle that makes it difficult to charge businesses with crimes? It's impossible to prove the requisite actus reus. Crimes require mens rea and it's hard to argue that a business had the culpability of a guilty mind. You can never charge a business with a strict liability crime. There are no legal obstaclesarrow_forwardYou are an associate attorney for Big Law & Associates. Bella comes to your office seeking legal advice. She wants to know what remedies she has as a result of Sharon’s breach. Based on your understanding of the UCC, what advice can you give her?arrow_forwardWidget Corporation is the manufacturer of many popular children’s toys but have seen a great decrease in sales and the board of directors is worried that the business may no longer be viable. The board decides to aggressively sue other toy manufacturers that have likely been infringing on Widget’s intellectual property, enter into a joint venture with a another company to build a new factory to reduce costs, and make large and notable donations to children hospitals as part of a PR campaign to raise the corporation's image. Additionally, the board decides to start manufacturing medical equipment to make up for the projected shortfalls in budget, even though the corporation was formed to make toys. Some shareholders are upset and sue the board of directors. (a) Which of the board’s actions fall into their express power and which are their implied power? Please explain why the actions would be categorized that way. (b) Would the ultra vires doctrine play a role in the shareholders suit…arrow_forward
- In US Supreme Court case O'Hagan v. United States (1997), O'Hagan was a lawyer working for Grand Met, a company that was secretly planning to make a tender offer for the stock of Pillsbury, the 'target' firm. O'Hagan bought call options on that stock before Grand Met offer went public. The misappropriation theory articulated by the Court's majority in this case is also called the theory of 'outsider' (rather than 'insider') trading. That is because 0'Hagan was not an insider of Pillsbury, the target. He was an outsider who did not owe a fiduciary duty to the shareholders of Pillsbury. The Court's majority held that he did, however, owe a fiduciary duty to Grand Met, the outside firm holding private material information releyant to the future value of Pillsbury stock.(T/F/U and Why?)arrow_forwardWhat remedies are available to a successful plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit?arrow_forwardAfter two years of research and the investment of considerable funds, coast-to-coast company (cc) develops a new product that it hopes will produce substantial profits. CC learns that a competitor, National sales, Inc, has made and begun to sell a nearly identical prod-uct CC learns from a reliable source that national paod a CC employee to obtain the plans for CC's product while it was in development. What legal re-course does CC have against National ?arrow_forward
- The Acme Electric Company worked day and night to develop a new current regulator designed to cut the electric power consumption in aluminum plants by 35%. They knew that, although the competition was fierce, their regulator could be produced more cheaply, was more reliable, and worked more efficiently than the competitors’ products. The owner, eager to capture the market, personally but somewhat hastily put together a 120-page proposal to the three major aluminum manufacturers, recommending that their regulators be installed at all company plants. She devoted the first 87 pages of the proposal to the mathematical theory and engineering design behind his new regulator, and the next 32 to descriptions of the new assembly line she planned to set up to produce regulators quickly. Buried in an appendix were the test results that compared her regulator’s performance with present models, and a poorly drawn graph showed how much the dollar savings would be. Acme Electric didn’t get the…arrow_forwardReview the Critical Legal Thinking Cases Case #19.5 on page 344 entitled Karns v. Emerson Electric Co. Using IRAC, which party or parties should prevail and why?arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student Edition
Business
ISBN:9781337407137
Author:Kelly
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...
Business
ISBN:9781337386494
Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)
Business
ISBN:9780134474021
Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. Steinbart
Publisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...
Business
ISBN:9781259929441
Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. Hult
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education