Person J suffered personal injuries with a tire manufactured by Company U. His father purchased the automobile from a dealer in State I. The tire was sold in Country B to Company G and subsequently installed on Company O when it was assembled in Company G plant in Country B. Company O delivered automobiles to State I during those years ranging from 3,235 to 6,630. Person C brought suit in State I against Company U to recover for damages for his personal injuries. Company U declared that, the case was not subjected to jurisdiction of State I courts because the company was not registered to do business in that state and it never had an agent and it never sold or shipped products into State I. To discuss: The arguments Company U could make for support of its claim that State I courts do not have the jurisdiction over it.

Question

Want to see the full answer?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 3, Problem 2TS

Summary Introduction

Case summary:

Person J suffered personal injuries with a tire manufactured by Company U. His father purchased the automobile from a dealer in State I. The tire was sold in Country B to Company G and subsequently installed on Company O when it was assembled in Company G plant in Country B.

Company O delivered automobiles to State I during those years ranging from 3,235 to 6,630. Person C brought suit in State I against Company U to recover for damages for his personal injuries. Company U declared that, the case was not subjected to jurisdiction of State I courts because the company was not registered to do business in that state and it never had an agent and it never sold or shipped products into State I.

To discuss: The arguments Company U could make for support of its claim that State I courts do not have the jurisdiction over it.

Expert Solution & Answer

Want to see the full answer?

Check out a sample textbook solution

See solution

Students have asked these similar questions

Company A appoints Company B as its exclusive agent to distribute its products in a specific territory. Company B adopts restrictive practices, preventing other potential distributors from entering the market. Discuss how agency law principles apply to the relationship between Company A and Company B, and analyze the potential antitrust implications of Company B's actions under relevant antitrust laws."

Discuss the competing interests at issue in antitrust cases where state-action immunity may be available to the defendant. Why does the United States have such a doctrine?

The National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. §§ 4301-06, exempts certain joint research, development and production activities from the per se rule of antitrust liability, and from the automatic award of attorneys’ fees to a plaintiff who successfully challenges such activities under the antitrust laws. For parties that notify the antitrust agencies of their intent to engage in such activities, it also requires “detrebling” – successful antitrust plaintiffs are entitled only to single damages. Do you support this legislation? Why or why not? Would you support extending these same protections to all competitive conduct that is subject to the US antitrust laws? Which categories of conduct would you include or exclude from such protection? Explain your reasoning.