BUGusa Inc. Worksheet

Carter v. Aramark Sports & Entm’t Servs., Inc., 153 Md. App. 210, 240 (2003). Therefore, an essential element of a claim for tortious interference with a prospective business advantage is that the defendant committed the act with an “unlawful purpose which constitutes malice.” Eastside Vend Distribs. v. Coca-Cola, Enters., 2006 Md. Cir. Ct. LEXIS 15, *19 (2006).

Case Study of case 69 A.D.3d 413: Yun Tung Chow vs. Reckitt & Colman, Inc.

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

Miller, R., & Jentz, G. (2012). Business law today. (9th ed.). Mason, OH: South-Western Cengage

Melvin, S. P. (2011). The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice. New York, NY:

Brewster Heights Packing, the buyer entered a contract with the seller for the purchase of apple packing machinery. The district court entered judg-ment in favor of the seller on its breach of contract claim. On appeal, the court af-firmed. The buyer contended that both it and the seller intended at the time of their con-tract to be bound by their written agreement and to prior oral discussions. The buyer contended that the largest portion of its damages stemmed from the loss of an orally bargained-for system. The court held that a clause in the parties’ contract prohibited the inclusion of any understandings or representations not expressly included in the con-tract. It appeared that the buyer intended to use the parol evidence not to explain or to supplement the contract, but rather to contradict the limitation of warranties contained in the contract. The court concluded that the buyer’s counterclaims of fraud and viola-tion of the Washington Consumer Protection Act failed because they did not give rise to the independent tort of fraud and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate an ef-fect on other consumers or a real and substantial potential for repetition of unfair con-duct.

Plaintiff further asserts that the Defendant breached its duty of care to her by: (1) “failing to fix a hazardous condition within a reasonable time;” (2) “failing to adequately warn plaintiff of a hazardous condition;” and (3) “otherwise failing to exercise reasonable and due care under the circumstances.” The Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages in the amount of two hundred thousand dollars, plus interest and costs.

|Readings |Read Ch. 1, 2, 3, 4, & 25 of The Legal Environment of Business. | | |

Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC owners, Ms. Mary Jane and Mr. Allen Greene employed Ms. Jennifer Lawson as a junior executive secretary for three years. During her time of employment, she encountered proprietary information which was covered under a confidentiality agreement she signed. Upon termination Ms. Lawson provided said information to a direct competitor of Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC violating this agreement. The plaintiffs, Ms. Mary Jane and Mr. Allen Greene are suing the defendant Ms. Jennifer Lawson for potential profit loss to their business and violation of the confidentiality agreement. The defendant is counter suing for wrongful termination from Greene’s Jewelry Wholesale LLC. stating her termination was issued due to her

This court further finds, as did the court in Shaeffer that the duty "runs only from the insurer to the insured, not to third parties." Id. (quoting Bean, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 4275, 1988 WL 114464 at *1). A third party, therefore, generally "has no cause of action for bad faith against the tortfeasor's insurance company." Id.; see also Chitlik v. Allstate Ins. Co., 34 Ohio App. 2d 193, 197-98, 299 N.E.2d 295 (1973).” So it is clear that Vic Victim will not be able to file a suit

The defendant transferred and used the equipment for Alligator Fast Food to a different business next door to Alligators Fast Food to the exclusion of the plaintiffs. The new business uses the same business logo and signage that were the assets of Alligator Fast Foods and sells predominantly the same products.

Case Analysis: Blanchard Importing and Distributing Co. Inc. (HBS Case 9 - 673 - 033)

Chapter 12 section 5 states that “negligence occurs when someone suffers injury because of another’s failure to live up to a required duty of care.” (Cross & Miller, 2012) The duty of care that the driver had was to obey the traffic laws. He neglected to obey such laws which ended in an injury to the driver of the truck. There are four elements to negligence. These elements are duty of care, breach, causation and damages.

This case was prepared by Professor Stephen E. Barndt of Pacific Lutheran University. This case was edited for 5MBP 9th Edition. Copyright C 1998 and 2000 by Stephen E. Barndt. This case was published in the Business Case [ourn Summer 1998. Vol. 1. No. t. pp. 53-{}9. Reprinted hy permission,

It is apparent that Steven was not paying enough attention when crossing the road on the night of the accident. Thus, Steven was, to a degree, also negligent as he did not adequately check that the road was clear. When deciding the degree of contributory negligence the courts must look at what reduction of damages pay-out is "just and equitable having regard 's to the claimant 's share in the responsibility for the damage". In order to reach a percentage of blameworthiness for each side, a broad comparison must be made of both the individual contributions from the pursuer and the defender, looking at both the causation of damage and the blameworthiness.