Lhc-Law Final Set Cases

Front 1

State Farm Mutual Automobile v. Campbell

Back 1

Campbell driving in car, tried to pass trucks, oncoming car swerves hits another car. One passenger killed, one permanently disabled
C is sued on tort and there is settlement offer fro 50k (max of policy limit)
State farm ignores advice to settle and assures C that assets were safe and SF would represent needs. They lose for $185849
At first SF refuses to cover excess but then they do.
C files against SF for bad faith, fraud, and intentioal infliction of emotional distress.
C wins compensatory damages and punitive damages of $145M by Utah supreme court
Supreme court uses right of certiorari. Punitive damages excessive in this case because few awards should have higher than signle digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages (which was one million in this case)

Front 2

Vaughn v. Wal-mart Stores, Inc.

Back 2

Girls buy stuff and go back in store, person searches them bc of suspision and makes them go to front of the store. They tell parents cant leave but the are allowed.
Trial courts award them $500.
Decision is reversed because as merchant they have quasi-police powers. Thus since reasonable force was used, there was cause for suspicion, and the detention was less than 60 min. this is legal.

Front 3

Frank B. Hall and Co. V. Buck

Back 3

-employee trying to get new job
-key elements of defamation: stmts. are false, injure plintiff's reputation, and are published
-This qulaifies as publication unless defamed individual or his agent invited the publication

Front 4

White v. Samsung Elect.

Back 4

-Vanna White
-tort of appropritaiton-prteoct's a person's exclusive right to exploit the value of her identity
-plaintiff must allage: 1. defednat's use of the plaintiff's name 2. use of name to commercial adv. 3. lack of consent. 4 resulting injury

Front 5

Texaco, inc. v. Pennzoil Co.

Back 5

-buyout of 3rd party
-requires knowledge by defendatn of existing contracutal rights
-texaco found guilty on inducing breach of contract b/c took active part in persuaiding party to breach
-tort of interference with contractula relations protects a party to a contract from a third party who intentinoally and improper inducing the other contracting party not to perform the contract

Front 6

ryan v. Friesenhahn

Back 6

-partying for minors
-alcohol illegal for minors-parents exercise negligence per se since injured party is member of class prtoected by stuate
-duty of parents to conrol action of minors who are guests

Front 7

soldano v. O'Daniles

Back 7

-911 call from bar
-employees conduct displayed a disregard for human life and the burden to respond was minimla
-his failure to respond (allow phone call to police) resulted in legal breach of duty of care
-preson may not have a duty to help but (in this case) has a duty not to hinder those who are helping

Front 8

love v. hardee's food systems

Back 8

-fall in bathroom
-owner or posessor of property is liable if they knew or by using ordinary care, coudl have known dangerous conditions (water in bathroom) and failed to remove, barricade, or warn of it and damages resulted

Front 9

palsgraf v. long island railroad

Back 9

-explosive in railroad
-even if the defendant's negligent conduct in fact caused harm, defendant is not liabile if they coudl not have forseen injuring the plaintiff

Front 10

peittion of kinsman transit co.

Back 10

-ships undocked
-though event unforseeable, companies could have seen damages from negligence
-the unforseeability of the exact manner and extent of a loss will not limit liability where the person injured and general nature of dmaage foresseable

Front 11

dukat vs. leiserve

Back 11

-bowling alley trip?
-a plaintiff is contributorily negelignent if 1l plaintif fails to protect self from injury2. p's conduct concurs and cooperatioes with d's actionable negligence. 3 's conduct contributes to p's injuries as a prxomiate cause
-assujmtpion of risk, if person knows and comprehends the danger, chooses to expose himself to it
-p's who has proven all elements of negligence will be denied full recovery if P volutnarily and knowingly assumes the risk or negligenty contrubted to her injuries

Front 12

klein v. prodyne Corp.

Back 12

-fireworks
-strict liabilyty for abnormally dangerous activities, p. liable for damges
-strict liabilyty for harm resultign from abnormally dangerous activities as determiend in light of place, time, and manner in while activity conducted

Front 13

felley v. singleton

Back 13

-faulty car
-affirmations of fact made during bargaining process regarding a sale of good are presumed to be part of the ___of bargain and thus constitute expres warranties

Front 14

in re l.b. trucking inc

Back 14

-farmer with weeds
-breach of express warranties (use of nitorgen base and effectiveness)
-breach of ipmleid: seller knows purpose for which goods sold and buyer is relyign on seller's skill or judgement, seller warrants that goods solds shall be fit for such purpose

Front 15

womoco v. navistar intl

Back 15

-tractors overheating
-in order to disclaim an implied warranty of merchantability, discalimer must mention the word "merchantabiltiy"
-a disclaimer of warranties of merchantabltiy and fitness for a particular purpose must be communicated clearly to the buyer

Front 16

dunne v. wal-mart stores inc.

Back 16

-fat girl on exercise bike
-duty to give a warngin arises from a forseeable danger of physical harm taht could result fromt eh nromal and probable use of the product and likelihood that (unless warned) user would not be aware of danger

Front 17

greene v. boddie-noell enterprises, inc.

Back 17

-girl spills coffee
-P must show product had defect which rendered it unreasonably dangerous for ordinary and forseeable use and voilated saftey std.
-strict liabily in tort only applies if defective product is unreasonably dangerous to user or consumer

Front 18

pittseley v. houser

Back 18

-carpet and services
-2 tests invovling transactions with both sale of goods and services
-1. predominant factor test: UCC applies to entice contract or not at all
2. contract separated into parts: UCC to goods but not to nong goodes
-if predominant purpose of transaction is sale of goods, than article appleies to whole transaction and vice versa

Front 19

Construction Associates, Inc. v. Fargo Water Equipment

Back 19

-water construction with clause stating no pay for consequentail dmages
-can override a term of a contract if it finds that term to be unconscionalbe or the restul of an unconscionsable negotatiation process

Front 20

empire gas corp v. american bakers co.

Back 20

-convert to gas with exclusive agreement with empire
-even thoguh the exact quantity of goods under requreiments contract is not specified, requirements are enforceable through the application of an objective std. base don good faith of both parties

Front 21

commerce and Industry insurance co. v. buyer corp

Back 21

-building blows up b/c of bayer products
-where a contract is formed by the parties conduct (as opposed to writings), all conflicting written terms are invalid

Front 22

pittsburgh industrail furnace co. v. universal consolidated co. inc

Back 22

-sale of furnances in whcih contract stopped
-FOb PLACE OF SHIPMENT CONTRACT, SELLER BEARS RISK AND EXPENSE OF PUTTING THE GOODS IN POSESSION OF AN INDEP. CARRIER AT SELLER'S LOCATION
-___passes to buyer at th time and place the seller devlier's the goods to the carrier

Front 23

robinson v. durham

Back 23

-unkonw stoel car sold to another party
-though robinson bought in good faith , he cannot receive title from a theif. thus there is breach of warranty of title
-a void title vs. no title

Front 24

heirich v. titus-will sales, inc.

Back 24

-hheinrich receives car from wilson who makes dealer-to-dealer sale with Titus-Will
-buyer in ordinary course of business acquires good title while buying from as merchant seller who was entrusted with possession of goods
-since titus-will gave wiolson everything and Heinrich made good fiath purchase, he acquire title

Front 25

windows inc. v. jordan panel systems corp

Back 25

-windows damaged during transit
-must be specified-destination contracts call for good to be delivered intact to destiatnion
-this is shipment contract thus windows delivered to carrier intact and jordan must pay for damages of when object received

Front 26

kenco homes, inc. v. williams

Back 26

bought and unbought unbuilt mobile home
-under UCC, non-breachign seller may recover dmages for non-accpetnace either
-1. difference b/t marked price and unpaid contract plus incidental damages minus expenses saved
2. any profit seller would have made from pull performance

Front 27

bigelow-sanford, Inc . v. Gunny corp

Back 27

-if seller breaches, and buyer makes substitute pruchases in good fiath and without unreasonable delay, eh may recover as damages the differnces b/t cost of cover and contract price (+incidental damages- expenses saved)

Front 28

coastal leasign corp. v. Tbar s corp

Back 28

-lease of cash register with default
-coastal is allowed to re-sell the goods to recover damages
-parties may liquidate damages as long as the negotiated amount is reasonable in light of anticipated losses
-coastal receives PV of registres b/c of article 2A

Front 29

BOC group inc. v. chevron chemcial company, LLC

Back 29

-liquid nitrogetn on time delivery
-parties to a sales contract may establish an exclusive rememdy as the sole remedy except wher ecircumsatnces cause an exclusive remedy to fial of its essentail prupose
-in this case, boc breached before tryign to use exclusive remedy and therefore is liable

Front 30

ed nowogroski insurance, inc. v. rucker

Back 30

-go to competitior insurance co. and use trade secrets
-fomer employee may use general knowledge but not use or disclose trade secrets

Front 31

-wal-mart stores, inc vs. samar bro's inc

Back 31

-walmart gcreates clothes similar to this company
-walmart wins
-unregisterd trade dress is protected for infrignement only upon showing of secondary meangin for product's sdesign

Front 32

NY times co. inc. v. tasini

Back 32

-reproduction on internet or free lance writers articles
-reproduction in computer databses w/o pmeriossion infrignes the authors copyrights

Front 33

Fed. trade commsiion v. pantron I. corp

Back 33

-hair loss only palcebo effect
-ftc must prove either 1. message conveyd is false
2. advertisers lacked basis for being true (these for false advertisinment
-ftc isnt' required to prove product is ineffctive to carry its burden of showing tha tseller's repeentations are "false" (b/c of placebo efect)

Front 34

household credit services v. pfenning

Back 34

-sues about over-charges not being labled fainance charges
-the TILA requires credit providers to disclose fianncial charges of laons but does not require all fees b claffisifed as finance costs

Front 35

philips v. grendal

Back 35

-mother-in-law does bg check
-fair credit reporting act limits the disclosure of soncumer credit reporting agencies
-basically can be used for court, conusmer, or toher kinds of legitimate business reaons

Front 36

california dental association v. federal trade comission

Back 36

-detnists gorup buys advertisements based on price and quaitntyt
-cournts must decide for each case whether rules are anti-competitive

Front 37

state oil vs. kahn

Back 37

-set max price for gas to be sold
-maximum vertical price fixing is to be judge by rule of reason
-not all vertical maximum price fixing is per se lawful

Front 38

eastman kodak co. v. image technical services, inc (

Back 38

-tying service and parts
-goes to trial b/c two industries origainl and kodak gains control of the market
-one with sign. economic power in one market wil not be permitted to gain unfair advantage in a diff. or tied market

Front 39

US. v. EI Du Pond De Nemours and Co.

Back 39

-had cellphone indstury
-relevant product includes product subisttaiutes on the basis of price, qualty and adaptailiby
-du point ahd dcellophane but not wrappign market

Front 40

hospital corp. of america v. FTC

Back 40

-acrquires hopstial
-FTC wins b/c reduces competition to 4 major firms
-a merger illegal if it leads to create monopoly or woudl substantially lessn competition
-this is regardless if it higher prices or collation has occrued yet rahte t aht it is isbustantially eaiser

Front 41

norma invetsment services inc. vl stirtz bernadrs boydensurdel and larter, PA

Back 41

-accoutnign frim and flase SEC filings
-norma as broker for laons is not in class that is protected by relaince accoutnants relatibility

Front 42

ernest and ernest v. hochfelder

Back 42

-didnt find scum of company if E&E did accoutn gofr
-accoutnatns are nto liabile for negligence, only intentaionl conduct

Front 43

S. Florida water mgmt. distrct v. microsakee tribe of indians

Back 43

-NPDES say stha ttype and quantity of pollutnat must receive permission to b ereleased in atnion's water.
-no requirements for discharge of unaltered water from one navigable ody of water to another

Front 44

US. vs bestfoods

Back 44

-waste dumped in MI, area now woned by subsidiary of orgainal co.
-issue can parent co. be held liable for pollution of subsidiary no except in 2 case 1. when form used to perform fraud
2. parent actively particpates in co.
-direct parental liabilty under CERCLA is not limited to a corporate parents sosl or joint venture operaion with subsidairy

Front 45

US. vos nippon paper industries co.

Back 45

-price fixing done in japan for US sold goods
-have claims over antitirust actions in foreing nations that has an intedned and substantial effect on US is within section one's juristidcitional reach

Front 46

SEC v. berger

Back 46

-berger false stmts. that affect mstly non-us citizens
-us. secruitites laws apply extraterritorailly when there is either conduct or effects int eh US relating to violation fo the federal secruities laws

Front 47

Bulova watch co. inc v. K hattori and Co.

Back 47

-ajpanese watch maker with US subsidaires raids marketing employees at Bulova
-wholloy-owned subsidadries established by parents companies seekign to retain unambigious control may be sufficient to support jurisidiction by US courts over parents