In an action for the recovery of the amount paid to Fast Food, there are various warranty theories that Jane and David can apply. The first of these theories is the implied warranty of merchantability. In this case, the two can rely on the condition that posits that the food or drink sold must fit the ordinary purposes for which it is sold. In this case, the buns fail to meet this criterion because they are not in a suitable condition for making the hot dogs. The second warranty that Jane and David may rely on is the implied warranty of fitness for a specific purpose. Since the purchase of the buns is intended for making hotdogs, they must be in such a state as to make this possible. In this case, the buns are moldy hence unfit for the purpose.
Definition of the Legal Question
Jane and David intend to sue the city of Charleston for arbitrary and unreasonable interference in their business. Their action is most likely to be reliant on the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. To advise them, it is imperative to identify the key facts then consider the law applicable to the facts and apply it. The next step will be to determine any tests and defenses applicable to the case.
For Jane and David to sue the Charleston city for a repeal of the ordinance and the subsequent citations arising from it, it must be determined whether the law is unconstitutional. Under the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment, individuals have the freedom to contract and engage in lawful business without arbitrary or unreasonable government influence. The test applied is two-pronged in nature. The first inquiry when assessing due process limitations is whether there is a proper purpose for implementing the statute and secondly, the reasonableness of the method selected to enforce the purpose.
In this case, the City can justify the ban by claiming that the purpose of the ordinance is to reduce the congestion in the city. The method selected is also in my opinion, not unreasonable. Issuing a citation accompanied by a fine is not an excessive punishment. However, Jane and David still have an avenue open to them. The only way they can successfully challenge the ordinance is by demonstrating that the presence of the vendors does not interfere with the flow of traffic in the area. Hence, they would argue that there was no proper purpose for instituting this ordinance, and it is, therefore, unconstitutional.
Peter Lewis wants to sue Pfizer for patent infringement as well as wrongful termination for his dismissal and the use of his invention without his consent. Lewis also wants to sue HCI, Supercuts, Jasmine, and Nina Brooks. To assess any possible actions that he may have against each individual and the chances of recovery, it is imperative to study the facts.
Lewis will base his action against Supercuts on the franchisor’s liability for actions by the employees of the franchisee. In determining the franchisor’s liability, the degree of control retained over the franchisee’s business is the most important factor. Where the franchisor exercises a high level of control over the franchisee, the franchisee is taken to be the agent of the franchisor. However, for the franchisor to be liable in such a situation, the actions of the employee must be within the scope of his or her employment contract. In this case, Lewis’ action may be unsuccessful because Supercuts does not exercise a lot of control over HCI. Hence, Supercuts may argue that no agency relationship exists between them.
In the action against HCI, Lewis will base his claim on the law of tort. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a principal is liable for a tort committed by the agent while engaging in the principal’s business. In this case, Nina Brooks as an employee of HCI is the company’s agent. Hence, the company is liable for her actions because they occurred within the scope of her employment. The company, in this case, cannot avoid the tort because it did not do a background check when hiring Brooks. Hence, the action is likely to succeed because the company is culpable for negligent hiring.
Lewis can also bring an action in tort against Nina Brooks. Under tort, individuals are personally liable for their actions regardless of whether they were acting as the employer’s agents at the time of the commission of the tort. Hence, Nina is personally liable for the tort of battery. In this case, Nina has no defense available to her since insanity is not a defense against an intentional tort. Hence, Lewis is likely to succeed in this instance.
Lewis also intends to sue Jasmine Guy for the injuries he obtained. Despite the fact that HCI is a registered company, there are instances where the shareholders may be personally liable for torts against the business. One of these instances is where a court decides that there is no proper separation between the corporate and natural persons. That is, the corporation is just the owner’s alter ego. One of these instances is when there is no separation between the owners and the businesses’ financial affairs. In this case, Lewis’ action may succeed because Jasmine regularly caters for her financial needs from the company bank account and vice versa.
In suing for patent infringement where no employment contract exists, common law principles are applied. One of these principles is that if an employee is not specifically hired to invent something, then any invention developed during the period belongs to the employee. This rule is a general one and it applies even when the invention relates to the employer’s business. However, if the employee used the employer’s time, equipment or materials in creating the invention, then the company gains a “shop-right” to it. However, the company may only use the invention within its usual scope of operation. For this reason, Lewis’ claim may be unsuccessful here since the company may defend itself that he used its time and resources.
Concerning filing his case against HCI, Jasmine, Nina, Supercuts and Pfizer in Arizona, this is not possible. The reason he cannot present his case in Arizona is that the courts there have no jurisdiction over the matter. Because the offense did not occur in Arizona, and neither are the defendants residents of Arizona, the case cannot be heard there.
As an Arizona resident, Lewis can file his suit against HCI, a corporation in a federal court in Arizona. He can do so provided the amount that he is suing for exceeds $75,000, and the opposing parties are not citizens of the same state. In this case, the diversity requirement will have been met. However, I would advise him to file the lawsuit in a federal court in Arizona because this court can hear the case in Arizona as opposed to a state court where he would have to travel to Nevada.
The shareholders of MVA can sue under a derivative action. In this type of action, a shareholder may file a suit on the corporation’s behalf for harm suffered by all the shareholders together. In this case, the shareholders may sue the company’s directors for a breach of fiduciary duty. A possible basis for the suit may be that the lucrative contract awarded to King will bring harm to the company. However, a potential defense, in this case, arises under the business judgment rule, where the directors can argue that they believe in good faith, that they acted in the company’s best interests. Hence, liability would only arise if they failed to follow the proper procedure.
Yes, it is possible for Dean to sue. He can file a product liability claim against MVA, the manufacturers of the defective gun. However, since no federal law on this matter exists, such cases apply state laws. In this case, the theory applicable is that of strict liability, where Dean only needs to prove that the product was defective in nature and is not required to establish the manufacturer’s negligence. MVA can only rescind the sale in case there was a misrepresentation, which induced the seller to complete the sale. In this instance, however, there exists no evidence of misrepresentation hence MVA, as the seller cannot rescind the transaction.