Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
223 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Executory Contract |
Negotiations are not immediately followed by simultaneous performances on both sides of the transaction. Not been performed by either party. "Fix" future obligations, eliminating uncertainty and allocating the risk of future unforeseen contingencies. (Ex: repaying a loan w/ interest) |
|
|
Express Contract |
The terms of the agreement are fully and explicitly stated in words, written or oral |
|
|
Harrison v. Williams Dental Group, PC |
An express contract "arises when its terms are stated by the parties". An implied contract "can arise from the acts and conduct of the parties". |
|
|
Implied Contract |
Contract that is implied from the conduct of the parties |
|
|
Quasi Contract |
Almost a contract, but there's something missing and therefore is not a true contract |
|
|
Ferrous Products Co v. Gulf States Trading Co |
A promise that is "implied in fact" is inferred from the expressions other than words by the promisor. A promise "implied in law" is one that nothing is promissory in form or justifies an inference of a promise. |
|
|
Unconditional Contract |
Only occurrence necessary to require performance is the passage of time |
|
|
Conditional Contract |
Something other than the passage of time must occur before performance is required |
|
|
Bilateral Contract |
A return promise is required. Both parties are promisors. |
|
|
Unilateral Contract |
Offeree can only accept by performance |
|
|
Executed contract |
contract that has been performed by all parties |
|
|
B L Nelson & Associates v. City of Argyle |
"Executed contracts exist where nothing remains to be done by either party while an executory contract is one which is still unperformed by both parties or one with respect to which something still remains to be done on both sides" |
|
|
Partially executed contract |
A executory contract where one party has completed their part and the other has not |
|
|
Valid Contract |
contract with all the elements necessary to entitle at least one of the parties to enforce it in court |
|
|
Void Contract |
no contract at all. Not recognized by law. Produces no legal obligations by any of the parties. |
|
|
Voidable Contract |
Valid contracts, but one of the parties to the contract has the right to avoid his contractual obligations without incurring legal liability |
|
|
Unenforceable Contract |
Valid contract that cannot be enforced because of certain legal defenses. (It was valid, but now the law has changed and is rendered unenforceable) |
|
|
Intent |
both parties must intend to create a legal obligation |
|
|
MG Bldg. Material, Ltd v. Moses Lopez Custom Homes, Inc |
Intent = "An expression of the terms of the contract with sufficient certainty so that there is no doubt regarding the parties' intentions" |
|
|
Baroid Equipment, Inc v. Odeco Drilling, Inc |
Elements of a contract: Offer, acceptance, meeting of the minds, mutual consent, if written then it must be executed and delivered with the intent that it be mutual and binding |
|
|
Roman v. Roman |
Texas requires consideration to have a legally enforceable contract |
|
|
TMC Worldwide, LP v. Gray |
Texas requires legality and capacity to have a legally enforceable contract |
|
|
Revocation of an offer |
Offerror revokes his offer prior to the acceptance of the offeree. is not effective until communicated to the offeree |
|
|
Rejection of an offer |
Offeree does not accept the offer. Rejections terminate offers |
|
|
Counteroffer |
Rejecting offer to make a new offer |
|
|
Termination of an offer by law |
Intervening illegality. Law terminates an offer that was once valid but is not anymore |
|
|
Consideration |
Something of value that is given up in return for the promise |
|
|
Legal detriment |
requirement of something by the contract that one was not already previously obligated by law to do or give up a legal right they have |
|
|
illusory promise |
expression cloaked in promissory terms that does not actually involve a commitment by the promisor |
|
|
promissory estoppel / detrimental reliance |
doctrine used to enforce certain promises that are not supported by consideration |
|
|
contractual capacity |
ability of the contracting party to understand that a contract is being made and to understand its general nature |
|
|
restitution |
duty to return the object of the contract to the other party |
|
|
ratification |
after reaching the age of majority, an individual can do this to contracts formed as a minor, removing the ability to disaffirm |
|
|
unconscionable contracts |
grossly unfair one-sided contract where one person is taking advantage of the situation |
|
|
exculpatory agreement |
releases one party from the consequences brought about by his wrongful acts or negligence |
|
|
unilateral mistake |
mistake in contract by one party which gives no relief to the contract terms |
|
|
mutual mistake of value |
no relief (buy a "diamond" for 30k and it turns out to be a gem) |
|
|
mutual mistake of material fact |
relief. either party can void the contract. (10 acres selling but find out it's 7 acres) |
|
|
Substantial Performance |
performance that is just below what is reasonably expected |
|
|
material breach of contract |
totally incomplete or insufficient performance well below what is reasonably expected |
|
|
conditional precedent |
clause in a contract that identifies some condition or obligation-triggering event that must occur prior to the creation of an obligation under the contract |
|
|
condition subsequent |
condition that is subsequent to the duty to perform |
|
|
concurrent conditions |
each party's absolute duty to perform is conditioned on the other party's absolute duty to perform |
|
|
Recission |
discharge by agreement with consideration |
|
|
Novation |
substitutes a new party for one of the original parties |
|
|
Accord and satisfaction |
Accord is the agreement between parties for different performance, and satisfaction is the performance of the substituted obligation. |
|
|
Repudiation / anticipatory breach |
one of the parties of the contract, prior to the time of performance announces that he will not perform as required under the contract |
|
|
punitive damages |
damages that are designed to punish the defendant for breaching the contract |
|
|
legal / monetary damages |
compensate the non-breaching party for the loss of the bargained-for exchange |
|
|
compensatory damages |
compensate an injured party for the loss of the bargain |
|
|
consequential damages |
arise from the breach as a result of the special needs or unique position of the buyer |
|
|
liquidated damages |
certain amount shall be paid in the case of default |
|
|
equitable remedies |
court-ordered action to do or not do something |
|
|
Rescission |
an action to undo or cancel a contract and return the parties to the position they occupied prior to forming the contract |
|
|
Reformation |
remedy used to rewrite the contract to express the true agreement between the parties |
|
|
specific performance |
court orders the breaching party to perform the exact bargain promised in the contract |
|
|
types of agencies |
agency by agreement, agency by ratification, agency by apparent authority/estoppel, agency by operational law |
|
|
Agency by Agreement |
Normally created by agreement of the parties, often with a written agreement called power of attorney, but doesn't have to be written |
|
|
Agency by Ratification |
"agent" acts on behalf of "principal" without being an agent, and the principal agrees to these actions |
|
|
Agency by Apparent Authority/Estoppel |
There is no agreed agency relationship, but "agent" acts on behalf of "principal," "principal" doesn't accept or deny, but does nothing and lets the "agent" continue. "Principal" gives third parties the impression that the "agent" is in fact an agent. |
|
|
Agency by Operational Law |
Normally in emergency situations when a decision must be made and legal guardians are not available to make the decision |
|
|
Duties of Agent to Principal |
Loyalty, obedience, reasonable care, accounting, notification |
|
|
Duties of Principal to Agent |
cooperation, payment if not gratuitous, reimbursement of reasonable expenses, providing a safe work environment, indemnifying agent of losses suffered |
|
|
undisclosed agency |
agent does not disclose the existence of a principal |
|
|
disclosed agency |
agent tells third party the identity of their principal |
|
|
partially disclosed agency |
agent tells third party he is working for a principal but doesn't disclose the identity of said principal |
|
|
intentional tort |
involves a deliberate action, harm may be intended or unintended |
|
|
negligence |
unintentional tort resulting from the failure to use reasonable care to one whom duty is owed, resulting in harm |
|
|
strict liability |
liability without fault. you did the acts whether you knew the outcome or not, so you're liable. |
|
|
appeasement |
purpose of the law is to limit the negative impact of the infliction of injury to the event of injury itself |
|
|
Assault definition |
intentional action that places a person in fear or apprehension of immediate bodily harm or offensive contact |
|
|
battery definition |
intentional act of physical contact or offensive touching of someone else without his or her permission |
|
|
defenses to assault and battery |
Consent, privilege, self-defense |
|
|
false imprisonment definition |
intentionally causing the confinement of another person without consent or legal justification |
|
|
intentional infliction of mental or emotional distress definition |
intentional or reckless causing of severe mental suffering in another by means of outrageous and extreme conduct or language that goes beyond the bounds of decency |
|
|
invasion of privacy definition |
interference with the right of someone else to be left alone unless there is reasonable public interest |
|
|
defamation definition |
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. |
|
|
libel |
defamation through some permanent form, such as print or recording |
|
|
slander |
defamation through some transitory means such as unrecorded speech |
|
|
Defenses to defamation |
truth and privilege |
|
|
absolute privilege |
protects statements made in a civil or criminal action so long as the statements are relevant to an issue in the proceeding |
|
|
conditioned / qualified privilege |
a defamatory statement is published in good faith and with proper motives |
|
|
Malicious prosecution definition |
wrong use of legal proceedings, civil or criminal |
|
|
fraudulent misrepresentation definition |
misrepresentation of facts, knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth, with intent that the innocent party rely on the misrepresentation and the innocent party suffers damages because of that misrepresentation. typically, con-man work |
|
|
disparagement definition |
defendant publishes a malicious untruth about plaintiff's property/goods knowing it's false that causes damages |
|
|
slander of title |
publishing false information about the legal ownership of property |
|
|
slander of quality / trade libel |
publishing false information about the quality of the property of someone else |
|
|
false advertising definition |
false statements are being made about the defendant's own products that give a false impression that the defendant's products are superior to the plaintiff's |
|
|
Texaco, Inc v. Pennzoil, Co |
Getty Oil Co was merging with Pennzoil, Texaco bought instead and promised to indemnify Getty of damages to Pennzoil, leading to a $10bil lawsuit |
|
|
real property |
land or anything permanently attached to land |
|
|
personal property |
anything besides real property, including tangible and intangible (ex: clothes, car, stocks, money) |
|
|
tangible property |
touchable property |
|
|
intangible property |
property you cannot touch |
|
|
Trespass to Real Property / Trespass to Land / Trespass definition |
unauthorized physical intrusion or entry upon land where someone else has a superior right to the property |
|
|
attractive nuisance law |
you must take whatever reasonable steps are necessary to protect a trespasser from something on your property that you know attracts trespassers |
|
|
trespass to personal property / trespass to chattel definition |
wrongful invasion of ownership rights in property other than land |
|
|
Conversion definition |
personal property is taken by the wrongdoer and kept from its true owner or prior possessor. permanent disenfranchising of the owner from his personal property |
|
|
How to differentiate between Trespass to Personal Property and Conversion |
- The extent of dominion or control over property - How long the interference lasted - Damage done to property - Inconvenience/expense to the owner |
|
|
Nuisance definition |
conduct that unreasonably and non-contractually interferes with the enjoyment or use of land |
|
|
private nuisance |
nuisance that affects only one or a few people |
|
|
public nuisance |
nuisance that affects the community or the public at large |
|
|
temporary nuisance |
normally reoccurring and thus the statute of limitations accrues anew upon each injury and can thus be ongoing and it then becomes subject to the Statute of Limitations, a time period in which the lawsuit must begin, normally 2 years |
|
|
permanent nuisance |
statute of limitations begins when the nuisance is discovered |
|
|
intellectual property |
property created from the ideas or thought processes of the creator |
|
|
Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act |
time period of an individual copyright owner is their lifetime plus 70 years and for a publisher, 95 years after the fate of the publication or 120 years after the date of creation (lesser of the two) |
|
|
compulsory licensing |
owners of sound recordings under certain conditions must grant anyone permission to record their music once it has been distributed to the public |
|
|
patent |
grant from the federal government that gives the applicant the exclusive right to make, sell, use, or allow others to use an invention for 20 years from the date of the filing of the application for the patent |
|
|
trademark |
any word, name, symbol, design, or combination thereof used in commerce to identify and distinguish the goods of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the goods |
|
|
service mark |
any word, name, symbol, design, or combination thereof used in commerce to identify and distinguish the services of one manufacturer or seller from those of another and to indicate the source of the services |
|
|
Trade dress |
an infringer steals the entire inherent distinctive look of a competitor |
|
|
Trade Names |
part or all of a business name |
|
|
trade secrets |
anything a business wants to keep secret |
|
|
misappropriation |
taking or stealing a trade secret and using it without the owner's permission |
|
|
negligence definition |
careless or reckless conduct. -Duty -Breach -Harm -Causation |
|
|
Element of Negligence: Duty |
Duty of Care arises whenever a person should foresee that his or her conduct would create an unreasonable risk of harm to others |
|
|
Element of Negligence: Breach |
Failure to Exercise Care - reasonable duty of care is breached |
|
|
Element of Negligence: Harm |
harm results from the negligence - physical harm to person or property, and some types of mental harm |
|
|
Element of Negligence: Causation |
There must be a casual connection between the breached duty and the harm |
|
|
Cause in Fact |
evidence shows that the complained-of act is the cause of the event that caused the injury |
|
|
Proximate Caues |
foreseeable risks having a reasonable relationship to the conduct |
|
|
defenses to negligence |
assumption of risk by the plaintiff and the plaintiff's own negligence, or superseding cause |
|
|
Assumption of risk |
voluntary exposure to a known risk |
|
|
Contributory negligence |
failure of the injured party to exercise reasonable care, which contributes to the injury. completely bars any recovery of damages |
|
|
comparative negligence |
allows a proration of the damages resulting from the combined negligence of the parties |
|
|
moral hazard |
under a simple negligence standard those at risk do not have the incentive to take self-protective or loss-avoidant measures |
|
|
superseding cause |
something occurs that breaks the casual connection required to have a negligence case |
|
|
strict liability |
applied to activities that are recognized as hazardous or dangerous, but are not so unreasonable as to be prohibited altogether |
|
|
Caveat Emptor |
let the buyer beware - purchaser bore all risks as to a product's use - no product liability |
|
|
Express Warranty |
can occur based on the statements of the manufacturer in advertising, sales literature, statements of their reps, etc |
|
|
Implied Warranties |
warranties that arise due to the facts and situation of the case |
|
|
Caveat Venditor |
Let the seller beware |
|
|
market share liability |
strict liability where all manufacturers of a product are responsible for the percentage of damages equaling their percent share in the market |
|
|
Why do people and businesses enter into contracts? |
to make promises legally enforceable |
|
|
What is a contract? |
Manifestation to do something you are not already obligated to do or to not do something you are obligated to do. |
|
|
Elements of a Common Law contract |
Agreement Consideration Capacity Legality Genuine & Real Assent Writing in some cases |
|
|
Elements of a Texas Law contract |
Offer Acceptance Meeting of the Minds Consent Writing Consideration Legality Contractual Capacity |
|
|
Reasonable Person Test in Contracts |
Test to simulate what a reasonable person would do in a like situation |
|
|
What are the Elements of an offer? |
Intent Definite Terms Communication to the offeree |
|
|
How to terminate an offer? |
Revocation Rejection Lapse of Time Counter offer Termination by law (illegal due to law change)
|
|
|
Requirements for an acceptance |
Must Be: Unconditional Unequivical Legally Communicated Mirror Image Rule |
|
|
Mail Box Rule |
The offer is valid when received by the offeree. If the offeree chooses to accept, he must follow the instructions on how to accept; if none is stated, he must choose a reasonable means (first class mail). This acceptance takes affect when the notice of acceptance enters the stream of mailing. |
|
|
When can a child not disaffirm contracts? |
If the contract is for neccessity, Military enlistment, marriage, or statute (public transportation, student loans, etc.) |
|
|
What is the majority rule for children in contracts using fake ID? Minority rule? |
The majority rule is children are to be held as children in all cases until legal age is met. The minority rule states that children should be held at the age they so claim regardless of their actual age.
|
|
|
When can an intoxicated person void out a contract? |
When the subject is sober. In some cases they may choose to ratify. |
|
|
What is the difference between being adjudicated insane and unadjudicated insane? |
Adjudicated insane is when a court declares an individual insane. Contracts as to such individual is void. Unadjudicated insane is when a person can be taken as insane but no body of law claims so. Contracts to such an individual are valid if the subject understands the terms or voidable if not. |
|
|
What is the only type of mistake that allows a person to get out of a contract? |
Mutual Mistake of a Material Fact |
|
|
What is a fraudulent contract? |
Intentional Lying to take advantage of a victim, these contracts are voidable |
|
|
Real Duress |
This is the threat of violence to pressure one to agree to a contract (voidable) |
|
|
Personal Duress |
This is when an individual is pressured into adhering to a contract they would not normally adhere to due to an economic situation |
|
|
Contracts that take longer than 1 year Contracts to real property Promise to Perform Contractual Obligations of someone else Prenuptial agreements Sales over $500 |
All these contracts must be in writing and all are part of the statute of frauds with the exception of the last one (sales over $500) |
|
|
Recission, Novation, & Accord & Satisfaction... |
Ways to terminate a contract by agreement |
|
|
How to discharge a contract by imposibility |
Only by objective impossibility (Massively more difficult than previously determined)
Subjective impossibility is not a valid means to terminate a contract. (I can't complete the contract) |
|
|
What options does the innocent party have in a repudiation/anticipatory breach case? |
Discharge the contract Find a new individual to complete the contract Wait to see of the individual in breach will change their mind and complete the contract |
|
|
What are the legal remedies for breach of contract? |
Liquidated Compensatory Consequential |
|
|
What are the equitable remedies for breach of contract? |
Recission Reformation Specific Performance Mitigation |
|
|
What are the duties owed to the Principal in an agency? |
Loyalty, obedience, reasonable care, accounting, and notification |
|
|
What are the duties owed to the agent in an agency? |
Cooperation, payment, reimbursement, safety, and indemnification |
|
|
What are the purposes of tort law? |
Appeasement Justice Deterrence Social Insurance |
|
|
Reasonable person standard of torts |
Would a reasonable person been afraid or in fear in a like situation |
|
|
What is the difference between intentional torts and negligent torts? |
Intentional torts are when the tortfeasor intends to exercise the action that leads to harm. Negligent torts are when the tortfeasor fails to exercise the duty of reasonable care, causing harm by no intent. In neither case is harm intended! |
|
|
What are the defenses for intentional torts |
Consent, Priviledge, Self- Defense, Social Interest, Truth |
|
|
What is the difference between intentional interference with contract and interference with prospective economic advantage? |
Intentional Interference with a contract is illegal interference of a third party when a contract is valid. Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage is when a third party interupts negotiations before a contract is valid. Texas does not recognize Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage. |
|
|
What are the elements to a negligence claim? |
Duty of Care Failure to Exercise care Injury Causation |
|
|
What is contributory Negligence? Comparative Negligence? |
Contributory is when both parties are negligent and the "Last clear chance doctrine" is iniated to determine which individual could have avoided negligence. This determines damages. Comparative is when both parties are negligent and the court decides who was more negligent and the damages may be split between the two parties |
|
|
Defenses to a negligence case |
Assumption of risks Comparitive & Contributory Negligence Superceding Cause |
|
|
Defenses for strict liability case |
Assumption of the risks Abuse or misuse |
|
|
Different types of product liability |
Based on Negligence Based on Warranty Strict Liability Absolute Liability Market Share Liability |
|
|
Duration of a copyright |
The author's life + 70 years or if sold to a publisher 95 years after date of publication or 120 years from creation whichever comes first. |
|
|
How to register for a copyright |
Obtain and fill out forms File forms with USCO Pay nonrefundable fee Send works Receive certificate |
|
|
How to obtain a copyright |
Simply claim it. This is legal but you cannot sue infringers if the copyright is not registered. |
|
|
Remedies if a copyright is registered |
Injunctions Impounding Cost and Fees Actual or Statutory Damages (expensive) |
|
|
Remedies if a copyright is not registered |
injunctions impounding of pirated works
|
|
|
Duration of a patent |
20 years |
|
|
Duration of a trademark or servicemark |
10 years which it must be registered again to receive another 10 years and so forth |
|
|
Harris v. Mickel |
under Texas law, once an offer is rejected, it is thereby terminated and cannot be accepted |
|
|
Thurmond v. Weiser |
Silence is not acceptance |
|
|
Ishin Speed Sport v. Rutherford |
Offer and acceptance must be in strict compliance with offers terms and are essential to creation of a binding contract |
|
|
Gilbert v. Petlieatte |
Acceptance must be identical with the offer in order to make a binding contract |
|
|
Spacek v. Maritime |
When it creates no obligation whatsoever on part of purported promisor is an illusory contract. |
|
|
Buddy L v. General Trailer |
Presumption exists in law that one possesses sufficient mental capacity to enter into contracts |
|
|
Browning-Ferris-Industries of Vermont V. Kelco |
The Supreme Court ruled that punitive damages awarded by civil juries are not fines within the historical context of the 8th amendment |
|
|
Hill v. Western Union Telegraph |
an employee was instructed to fix a clock for a lady. When she brought it in, he had been drinking and said I would fix your clock for love. The lady filed for assault against the company and won at the trial level however the company appealed and won because the employee was not acting in his scope of employment.
|
|
|
Texas Farm Bureau Insurance v. Sears |
The elements of infliction of emotional distress where defined in this case as: Defendant acted intentionally and recklessly Defendant conduct was extreme and outrageous The actions of the defendant caused the plaintiff emotional distress The emotional distress suffered by the plaintiff was severe |
|
|
Creditwatch V. Jackson |
Texas Supreme court clarified the tort of infliction of emotional distress as a gap filler and cannot be used to circumvent the limitations placed on the recovery of mental anguish damages under more established tort |
|
|
Hoffman La Roche v. Zeltwanger |
The Supreme Court of Texas stated the purpose of the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress is to supplement existing forms of recovery by providing a cause of action for egregious conduct that might otherwise go unremedied. Where the gravamen of a plaintiffs complaint is really another tort, intentional infliction of emotional distress should not be available. |
|
|
Lewis Turner v. Linda Turner |
Montgomery County erred in awarding Lewis $50000 for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress when another recognized tort of assault exsisted. |
|
|
Rahul K, Nath, MD v. Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital |
Appeals court upheld verdict awarding Texas Children's Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine attorneys fees as sanctions against Dr. Nath because his claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was in bad faith and harassing and lacked evidence. |
|
|
Twyman v. Twyman |
Texas became the 47th state to recognize the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress |
|
|
Tidelands Automobile Club v. Walters |
This family was a member of a club where they would receive a life insurance policy. The Mrs. was killed in an automobile accident and the insurance company delayed payment stating that alcohol was involved. An autopsy was ordered and no alcohol was found. A report was sent to the insurance company. It was tampered with and the family filed suit against the company and won |
|
|
Beaumont v. Basham |
Defined the elements of Invasion of Privacy in Texas as
The Defendant intentionally intruded the plaintiff's solitude, seclusion, or private affairs
The intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person
|
|
|
Galella v. Onasis |
A suit was brought upon by a celebrity against a photographer for interfering with her life. The court established a 3 prong test for celebrity privacy: 1) Public interest 2)What was the danger 3) Right of the individual to be left alone
The celebrity was granted more privacy through this ruling |
|
|
Hutchinson v. Proxmire |
The famous "Golden Fleece Award" was not protected by the absolute privelege for legislators in their official capacity |
|
|
Texas Beef Cattle Co. v. Green |
This court case established that Texas does recognize the tort of Malicious Prosecution |
|
|
Airgas Southwest Inc. v. IWS Gas and Supply of Texas |
This case set the elements for malicious prosecution in Texas |
|
|
Parker v. Dallas Hunting and Fishing Club |
Said proof of malicious prosecution in Texas must be positive, clear, and satisfactory |
|
|
RRR Farms v. American Horse Protection Assn |
Claimed that Texas recognizes a tort called Abuse of Process and highlighted the elements thereof |
|
|
In re DEH |
This case set the elements of Fraud in Texas which are similar to the common law elements |
|
|
Hill v. Heritage Resources |
Set the elements of Disparagement in Texas |
|
|
Astoria Industries v. SNF |
Set the damages sought and the proof neccessary to gain such damages in Disparagement cases |
|
|
Lumley v. Guy |
Established the tort of Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations |
|
|
Schneider Nat. Carriers v. Bates |
Case that defined nuisance as a condition that substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of the land by causing unreasonable discomfort or annoyance |
|
|
City of Dallas v. Stewart |
A case that made it legal to stop urban blight. Unfortunately, the wrong house was demolished |
|
|
Eldred v. Ashcroft |
Congress acted within its authority on copyright parity and did not transgress constitutional limitations |
|
|
Four Prong Test: Fair Use Doctrine |
The purpose of the use is fair and appropriate such as a non profit education purpose
The nature of the work
The percentage used
The effect of profit |
|
|
Soweco Inc. v. Shell Oil |
There are more labels than categories and sometimes more difficult for a court to articulate and apply in terms of trademarks and servicemarks |
|
|
Volgswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Rickard |
The concept of secondary meaning recognizes that words with an ordinary and primary meaning of their own may by long use with a particular product come to be known by the public as that particular product |
|
|
Zatarian's Inc v. Oak Grove Smokehouse |
Factors such as amount and manner of advertising, volume of sales, and length and manner of use may be circumstantial evidence relevant to the issue of secondary meaning |
|
|
Major League Baseball v. Sed Non Olet Denarius |
Court held that the LA Dodgers abandoned the trademark and thus the rights to the Brooklyn Dodgers trademark |
|
|
Bayer Co. v. United Drug Co. |
The most well known cause of losing a trademark is it becoming generic ie aspirin |
|
|
Coca Cola v. Gemini Rising |
This case exhibited tarnishing of a trademark |
|
|
Toys R Us v. Akkaoui |
Court found this idea of tarnishing was not an allowable parody and sexually suggestive |
|
|
Two Pesos v. Taco Cabana |
This was a case that first established trade dress |
|
|
Wal Mart v. Samarra Bros |
Trade dress was not ruled because shoppers should know that they are receiving a lower quality good at one rather than another |
|
|
Palsgraf v. Long Island Rail |
This cause delt with Proximate cause in negligence |
|
|
Macpherson v. Buick |
This was a case dealing with product liability by negligence where the court found the manufacturer liable because they negligently placed a defective product on the market |
|
|
Starr v. Koppers Co. |
One who manufactures or supplies a product has a duty of reasonable care to users and to those in the foreseeable zone of danger of such use, to prevent physical harm that he should reasonably see could result from the use of the product. |
|
|
Farley v. MM Cattle Co |
Manufacturer has the negligence defenses in Texas except assumption of the risks unless there was knowing express consent |
|
|
Baxter v. Ford Motor Co. |
A company is liable if they make a false claim and a product is bought for such a false claim (express warranty) |
|
|
Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors |
This case stated that implied warranty of merchantability was breached on part of the manufacturer |
|
|
Nobility Homes v. Shivers |
This case established the explanation for implied warranty of merchantability and the elements thereof |
|
|
Cunningham v. MacNeal Memorial Hospital |
The defendant is liable whether or not he was at fault in creating that condition or in failing to discover and eliminate in...Thus the test for imposing strict liability is whether the product is unreasonably dangerous to use the words of the Restatement |
|
|
Sindell v. Abbott Laboratiories |
This is the leading case in the area of Market Share Liability. The supreme court of California suggested that manufacturers be responsible only for the percentage of product they put on the market |
|
|
Asbestos Claims Criteria and Compensation Act of 2003 |
Provided for the fair and efficient judicial consideration of personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of asbestos exposure. |
