Texas Customer vs. California based Widget Co. Widget Corporation, based in California, and the company President are being sued for damages caused by the installation of their product in Texas by a local handyman hired by
Widget Co. Even though the Widget was incorporated in Delaware, California is considered the headquarters because business is conducted from that location. Civil law can generally be divided into two categories: substantive and procedural. Substantive law can be explained as the law of the land or local law. Procedural laws are involve the actual manner of how a lawsuit is administered by a court. These details around the laws can vary by state as in the Widget case which involves California, Texas and at a …show more content…
Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions. Texas applies the most-significant-relationship test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Under that analysis, it is not necessary that a single state 's law control all substantive issues. Each issue is considered separately and the state law that has the most significant relationship to the issue controls. Using the Texas most-significant-relationship analysis, the law of the place of the injury decides the questions of substantive law unless the policy considerations of the alternative choice-of-law principles show more significant …show more content…
The product hadn’t been substantially altered or tampered with from the original installation. One of the manufacturer and seller defense’s definitely doesn’t apply.. The product had not been owned for a long time. They had it for only a week. Due to that fact, my first order of business was to investigate and gather information. Some of the questions that needed to be answered are: 1. Was the handyman insured and vetted for quality? Did he sign any agreement acknowledging receipt of the instructions for installation and other Widget corp. requirements and expectations around the installation. 2. Did the handyman sign off that the installation was complete and ready for use or did alert the customer that he was not finished and would return? Has he acknowledged he was in a hurry and used the wrong bolt? 3. Did the contract between Widget Corp. And the customer have any provisions for inspection before utilization? If so, was an inspection completed and what were the results? 4. What type of injury was sustained? 5. Was the injured party trained and eligible to use the instrument that caused the inury? Did they follow proper protocol as instructed and did any of the customers actions contribute to the
Widget Co. Even though the Widget was incorporated in Delaware, California is considered the headquarters because business is conducted from that location. Civil law can generally be divided into two categories: substantive and procedural. Substantive law can be explained as the law of the land or local law. Procedural laws are involve the actual manner of how a lawsuit is administered by a court. These details around the laws can vary by state as in the Widget case which involves California, Texas and at a …show more content…
Choice of law is a procedural stage in the litigation of a case involving the conflict of laws when it is necessary to reconcile the differences between the laws of different legal jurisdictions. Texas applies the most-significant-relationship test set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws. Under that analysis, it is not necessary that a single state 's law control all substantive issues. Each issue is considered separately and the state law that has the most significant relationship to the issue controls. Using the Texas most-significant-relationship analysis, the law of the place of the injury decides the questions of substantive law unless the policy considerations of the alternative choice-of-law principles show more significant …show more content…
The product hadn’t been substantially altered or tampered with from the original installation. One of the manufacturer and seller defense’s definitely doesn’t apply.. The product had not been owned for a long time. They had it for only a week. Due to that fact, my first order of business was to investigate and gather information. Some of the questions that needed to be answered are: 1. Was the handyman insured and vetted for quality? Did he sign any agreement acknowledging receipt of the instructions for installation and other Widget corp. requirements and expectations around the installation. 2. Did the handyman sign off that the installation was complete and ready for use or did alert the customer that he was not finished and would return? Has he acknowledged he was in a hurry and used the wrong bolt? 3. Did the contract between Widget Corp. And the customer have any provisions for inspection before utilization? If so, was an inspection completed and what were the results? 4. What type of injury was sustained? 5. Was the injured party trained and eligible to use the instrument that caused the inury? Did they follow proper protocol as instructed and did any of the customers actions contribute to the