This case of Margolin versus the businesses of Funny Face and Novelty Now is most likely best served by having this case done in a State court as the issue is a matter of product liability and does not fall into the federal court system guidelines for them taking this case. Since all parties involved are from different states and the long arm statutes in this case can be used, as “The Supreme Court stated that, with the advancement of modern communication and transportation, it is usually not unfair to require a party to defend itself in a state in which it conducts some business activity.” ("Personal Jurisdiction in Federal Courts - Jurisdiction - Personal Jurisdiction - Civil Procedure," 2016) Funny Face does market nationally through many
…show more content…
This type of ADR usually can save all parties involved much more monetarily than allowing this to proceed. The negative “side to this is that one party has must be willing to give the other party the information that it is willing to give up to settle.” ("McGraw-Hill Connect," 2016) Another form that could be successful in this case would be the use of a minitrial, this type of ADR would allow both parties to present their cases to a neutral party. “This would allow each party to be able to discuss settlement options after the neutral advisor provided their opinion. This would allow them to begin terms of a settlement.” ("McGraw-Hill Connect," 2016) another advantage to this type is that if each of the parties cannot come to a settlement the neutral advisor can settle this for …show more content…
The owners of Funny Face could also be charged for fraud in general as they knowingly used an inferior product. The changing of PYR that was not FDA approved and changing the ingredients to those not properly listed is not an acceptable business practice by Chris of Funny Face in order to better obtain more profits could eventually hold him and his company negligent, as they as a whole can be held liable for the crimes committed by their
This type of ADR usually can save all parties involved much more monetarily than allowing this to proceed. The negative “side to this is that one party has must be willing to give the other party the information that it is willing to give up to settle.” ("McGraw-Hill Connect," 2016) Another form that could be successful in this case would be the use of a minitrial, this type of ADR would allow both parties to present their cases to a neutral party. “This would allow each party to be able to discuss settlement options after the neutral advisor provided their opinion. This would allow them to begin terms of a settlement.” ("McGraw-Hill Connect," 2016) another advantage to this type is that if each of the parties cannot come to a settlement the neutral advisor can settle this for …show more content…
The owners of Funny Face could also be charged for fraud in general as they knowingly used an inferior product. The changing of PYR that was not FDA approved and changing the ingredients to those not properly listed is not an acceptable business practice by Chris of Funny Face in order to better obtain more profits could eventually hold him and his company negligent, as they as a whole can be held liable for the crimes committed by their