Mgmt 209 Exam 2

Front 1

agency

Back 1

principal appoints agent to represent principal in business dealing with third party

Front 2

agent

Back 2

the representative of the principal

Front 3

principal

Back 3

the party being bound to third parties in contracts and in tort law by the agency

Front 4

express authority

Back 4

greed power of agent

Front 5

fiduciary duty

Back 5

agent must subordinate his self interests to those of principal

Front 6

general agency

Back 6

A fiduciary relationship whereby the agent is given the power to bind (sign for) the principal for certain business purposes.

Front 7

implied authority

Back 7

power necessary for agent to carry out express authority

Front 8

ratification

Back 8

someone acts without agreement of the principal, acts on behalf of the principal, principal finds out, agrees to those actions. creates an agency

Front 9

self dealing

Back 9

the conduct of a trustee, an attorney, a corporate officer, or other fiduciary that consists of taking advantage of his position in a transaction and acting for his own interests rather than for the interests of the beneficiaries of the trust, corporate shareholders, or his principal

Front 10

special agency

Back 10

Agent who acts for a principal only for a particular purpose

Front 11

universal agency

Back 11

A fiduciary relationship wherein the agent is given full legal power to transact all types of matters for his principal. For obvious reasons, this agency is rare. An unlimited power of attorney would create a universal agency.

Front 12

tort

Back 12

civil wrong other than breach of contract for which the law provides a remedy

Front 13

assault

Back 13

intentional act placing a person in fear or apprehension of immediate bodily harm or offensive contact

Front 14

battery

Back 14

unlawful touching or physical contact without consent

Front 15

Hill v. Western Union Telegraph

Back 15

established that assault did not necessitate the actual ability to touch someone (employee and clock owner's wife)

Front 16

Hutchinson v. Proxmire

Back 16

Golden Fleece award. limited Constitutional privileges in defamation of character

Front 17

lanham act

Back 17

prohibits a number of activities, including trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and false advertising.

Front 18

Texaco v. Pennzoil

Back 18

Getty Oil had an informal contract with Pennzoil, Texaco interfered, Texaco lost appeal "ten billion dollar jury award"

Front 19

intentional tort

Back 19

a deliberate action which results in an injury

Front 20

negligence

Back 20

an unintentional tort that arises from the failure to use reasonable care toward one to whom a duty is owned

Front 21

strict liability

Back 21

liability without fault

Front 22

ethical retribution

Back 22

emphasis upon the fact that the payment of compensation is harmful to the offender and that justice requires that the offender suffer the harm

Front 23

ethical compensation

Back 23

looks at the situation from the point of the victim

Front 24

compensatory damages

Back 24

past and future medical expenses

past and future economic loss

past and future pain and suffering

Front 25

punitive damages

Back 25

awards designed to punish individual defendants

Front 26

Browning-Ferris-Industries of Vermont, Inc v. Kelco (1989)

Back 26

Supreme Court ruled that punitive damages are not "fines" within the historical context of the 8th amendment

Front 27

defense

Back 27

a legal justification to commit an action without legal ramifications that would otherwise be considered a tort

Front 28

consent

Back 28

expressed as signed in releases or waivers or implied

Front 29

tortfeasor

Back 29

the person committing the tort

Front 30

privilege

Back 30

a defense that allows the individual to commit the tort due to who he or she is, when they are acting within the scope of their official capacity

Front 31

self-defense

Back 31

defend yourself and others using reasonable force, can use deadly if used against you first

Front 32

shopkeeper's privilege

Back 32

merchant may assert this alleging that detention of the customer was justified

Front 33

infliction of mental distress

Back 33

the intentional or reckless causing of severe mental suffering in another by means of extreme conduct or language

Front 34

invasion of privacy

Back 34

using a person's name or likeness for business purposes without consent

unreasonable intrusion upon an individual's physical solitude

public disclosure about a person which is offensive and objectionable

publication of information which places an individual in a false light

Front 35

defamation

Back 35

a publication of a false statement that tends to injure a person's reputation or good name causing the public to hold that person up to hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to cause him to be shunned or avoided

Front 36

libel

Back 36

defamation through soem permanent form

Front 37

slander

Back 37

defamation through some transitory means

Front 38

malice

Back 38

false and person knew it was false or should have known

Front 39

privilege (defamation)

Back 39

based upon the idea that the ability to publish some defamatory statements furthers certain social interests

Front 40

absolute privilege

Back 40

applies in those situations where freedom of speech is required

Front 41

constitutional privileges

Back 41

statements made by federal and state legislators and high level public officials in performing their duties, also examples of absolute privilege

Front 42

conditional/qualified privilege

Back 42

when a defamatory statement is published in good faith and with proper motives

Front 43

malicious prosecution

Back 43

the wrong use of legal proceedings, civil or criminal

Front 44

fraudulent misrepresentation (fraud)

Back 44

misrepresentation of material facts

misrepresentation was made knowing that it was false or with a reckless disregard for the truth

intent that innocent party rely on the misrepresentation

justifiable reliance on the misrepresentations (must be believable)

innocent party must suffer damages

must be a causal connection between the misrepresentation and the damages suffered

Front 45

puffery/seller's talk

Back 45

opinion, not misrepresenting facts

Front 46

product disparagement

Back 46

defendant published an untruth about plaintiff's property or products

defendant knew the statement was untrue

statement was made with malice and intent to injure plaintiff

plaintiff suffered actual damages

Front 47

false advertising

Back 47

false statements being made about defendant's own products which give a false impression that the defendant's products are superior to the plaintiff's

Front 48

section 43(a) of Lanham Act

Back 48

established an action for damages for any false description or representation of one's goods or services, which may damage a competitor

Front 49

liability rules

Back 49

intended to deter infringement upon private property rights by making the infringer pay

Front 50

property rules

Back 50

deal with property law, not tort law, and involve outright prohibition against interference with property rights

Front 51

real property

Back 51

land or anything permanently attached to it

Front 52

personal property

Back 52

any property other than real property

Front 53

tangible property

Back 53

property you can touch

Front 54

intangible property

Back 54

property that you can't touch such as stocks

Front 55

trespass to land

Back 55

any unauthorized physical intrusion or entry upon land where someone else has a superior right to the property

Front 56

attractive nuisance doctrine

Back 56

if you have something on your property that attracts trespassers, then you must take reasonable steps to protect the trespasser

Front 57

conversion

Back 57

personal property is taken by the wrongdoer and kept from its true owner or prior possessor

Front 58

externalities

Back 58

third-parties affected by the activities of other individuals and businesses

Front 59

nuisance

Back 59

any conduct which unreasonably and non-contractually interferes with the enjoyment or use of land

Front 60

private nuisance

Back 60

a nuisance that affects only one or a few people

Front 61

public nuisance

Back 61

affects the community or the public at large

Front 62

intellectual proerty

Back 62

property created from teh ideas or thought proceses of the creator

Front 63

infrignement

Back 63

when someone other htan the owner uses intellecutal property wihtpout the owner's permission

Front 64

Fogerty v. Fantasy (1994)

Back 64

Fantasy filed suit against Fogerty for singing some of the songs he ahd previosuly sung which they claimed to own the copyright. Fantasy lost and had to pay attorney fees

Front 65

compulsory licensing

Back 65

owners of sound recordings must grant anyone permission to record their music once it has been performed in public

Front 66

Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act (1998)

Back 66

basic time period of an individual copyright owner is now the author's lifetime plus 70 years and for a publisher 95 years after date of publication or 120 years after date of creation of work

Front 67

Fair Use Doctrine

Back 67

allows someone ot use the copyright of someoen else without permission when appropriate dependign on:

the purpose and character of the use being for a fair, appropriate purpose

the nature of the copyrighted work

the percentage of the total work that is used

the effect that the use will have on the value or profit-making potential of the original work

Front 68

Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International (1984)

Back 68

a computer company can copyright its computer operating instructions

Front 69

Apple Computer Inc v. Microsoft (1994)

Back 69

a computer company cannot copyright the software look and feel

Front 70

public domain

Back 70

belongs to everyone so everyone si free to use it. being on the internet does NOT ensure this

Front 71

patent

Back 71

a grant from the federal government that gives the applicatn th eexclusive right to make, use , sell, or allow others to use an invention for 20 years from the date of the filing of the application for the patent

Front 72

Federal Patent Statute of 1952

Back 72

governs patent law. furthers the incentive to inventors to make their inventions public and to protect the patent holder from infringement

Front 73

trademark

Back 73

any mark, logo, short phrase, symbol, or name under which a business operates or markets their products

Front 74

service makr

Back 74

same as a trademark but used to identify a service, not a product

Front 75

secondary meaning

Back 75

achieved if a substantial number of people feel that ther is a secondary meaning from the logo, word, etc.

Front 76

fruit of the Loom v. Girouard

Back 76

fruit of the loom claimed girouard was infringing on trademark by using fruit to advertise underwear. NOT ENOUGH for secondary meaning

Front 77

Federal Trademark Dilution act of 1995

Back 77

allows trademark holderrs to sue even non-competitors for blurring and tarnishing a trademark

Front 78

blurring

Back 78

someone makes a totally unrelated product and uses a famous name

Front 79

tarnishing

Back 79

using a word or phrase to create a negative association with an established trademark

Front 80

Trade Dress

Back 80

where an infringer steals the entire inherent distinctive look of a competitor

Front 81

Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana (1992)

Back 81

Taco C claimed that Two Pesos imitatid their appearance, one

Front 82

Wal-Mart v. Samara Brothers (2000)

Back 82

desiner look-alike clothing at Wal-Mart was okay b/c no one woudl confuse it for the real thing

Front 83

Trade Names

Back 83

apply to a part or all of a business name

Front 84

trade secrets

Back 84

anything that the business wants to keep secret

Front 85

misappropriation

Back 85

obtaining the trade secret in an unlawful manner

Front 86

reasonable person of ordinary prudence

Back 86

the standard of care used by teh courts

Front 87

United States v. Carroll Towing (1947)

Back 87

Judge Learned hand said that the negligence is determined by the likelihood that the defendants conduct will injure others times the seriousenss of the injury if it happens, balanced against the interest at which the risk must be avoided

Front 88

cause in fact

Back 88

established by evidence showing that the commplained-of act is the cause of teh event that cuased the injury

Front 89

proximate cause

Back 89

responsibility for oen's actiosn is limited to consequences that bear a reasonable relationship to the conduct

Front 90

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co. (1928)

Back 90

guards grabbed fallign man who dropped box of explosive, Mrs. Palsgraf was hit by scale on railroad platform and injurded, Palsgraf lost

Front 91

contirbutory negligence

Back 91

failure of hte plaintiff to excercise reasonable care, which contributes to the injury

Front 92

comparative negligence

Back 92

allows a proration of the damages resulting from the combiend negligence of the parties

Front 93

moral hazard

Back 93

the concern that under a simple negligence standard those at risk to not have the incentive ot be self-protective

Front 94

caveat emptor

Back 94

let the buyer beware

Front 95

information costs

Back 95

inspecting the products and gathering all necessary information

Front 96

Macpherson v. Buick Motor Company 1916

Back 96

person who bought a car which had a defective wheel could sue the manufacturer for negligence

Front 97

duty of care

Back 97

owed by the negligent party

Front 98

breach of duty

Back 98

duty of care exists and is not done

Front 99

assumption of risk

Back 99

plaintiff was fully aware of the risk/possibility of injury and voluntairly proceeded in spite of such risk

Front 100

Section 402(A) of the second restatement of torts

Back 100

doctrine of strict liability when it comes to products

Front 101

consumer epectations test

Back 101

wehn consumers buy a product that have the right to expect that it is safe

Front 102

caveat venditor

Back 102

let the seller beware

Front 103

Cunningham v. MacNeal Memorial Hospital

Back 103

cunningham contracted serum hepatitis from blood transfusions adminstered by hospital. upheld strict liability

Front 104

market share liability

Back 104

percentage of damages paid determined by percentage of product distributed

Front 105

Sindell v. Abbott laboratoties 1980

Back 105

DES drug, market share liablilty

Front 106

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Acto f 1975

Back 106

all consumer goods warranties must e written in clear and straightforard language and provide certain remidies

Front 107

warranty of merchantibility

Back 107

goods are fit for the ordinary purposes for which they were sold

Front 108

cybersquatting

Back 108

taking a domain name and sellign it for a big price

Front 109

copyright

Back 109

don't have to apply for this

Front 110

labeling defects

Back 110

label defects, assumption of risk

Front 111

product abuse

Back 111

when plaintiff causees riskiness

Front 112

Copyright Act of 1976

Back 112

primary source of copyright law in US

Front 113

Consumer Product Safety Act

Back 113

established the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission as an independent agency of the United States federal government and defined its basic authority. The act gives CPSC the power to develop safety standards and pursue recalls for products that present unreasonable or substantial risks of injury or death to consumers. It also allows CPSC to ban a product if there is no feasible alternative.

Front 114

Kefauver-Harris Amendment of 1962

Back 114

a 1962 amendment to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

It introduced a requirement for drug manufacturers to provide proof of the effectiveness and safety of their drugs before approval [1] [2] , required drug advertising to disclose accurate information about side effects, and stopped cheap generic drugs being marketed as expensive drugs under new trade names as new "breakthrough" medications.

Front 115

Baxter v. Ford Motor Company

Back 115

express warranty. shatterproof glass cliam. Baxter and his injured eye won

Front 116

Greenman v. Yuba Power Products

Back 116

implied warranty. wood injured Greenman. strict liability upheld

Front 117

Hennigensen v. Bloomfied Motors

Back 117

the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an automobile manufacturer's attempt to use an express warranty which disclaimed an implied warranty of merchantability was invalid.