Rules of Jurisdiction
Mr. Margolin’s lawsuit would be better address if he files it within the proper jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to render a decision about the case in question. In this case we have the potential of three jurisdictions California, Florida and/or New York. Although, Mr. Margolin file suit against Novelty Now Inc. in the state of New York, the most appropriate jurisdiction would be in California. We know the business owners live in California and if we assumed that the servers and computer equipment are also based in California the court will have personal jurisdiction as well as subject-matter over the case in the state of California. The court can apply the personal jurisdiction rule if it can …show more content…
The purpose of criminal law is to punish offender who cause these harms. In a criminal case, society is seen as the victim and the state files charges against the defendant. In a civil case the victim is an individual(s) and an individual or corporation can file a suit. The lawsuit of Mr. Margolin against Novelty Now is a matter of civil case. Mr. Margolin is the individual and victim that files suit. Civil cases usually result in monetary damages or demands to cease or continue an action.
Novelty Now, substituted PYR (a low-cost chemical emulsifier) in its original formula under the direction of Chris, one of the owner of Funny Face. Under criminal laws, both elements of a crime are present: “actus reus” wrongful behavior and “mens rea” wrongful state of mind. The consequence of the wrongful behavior element is Mr. Margolin’s skin discoloration and Chris’ wrongful state of mind is evident of his negligent use of a non-FDA approved ingredient. Since Chris is one of the three co-founder/owner of Funny Face, he and the other owners Matt & Ian can be held liable of criminal act under the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine. (Kubasek, p.161) In United State v. Park. 421 U.S. 658. (1975). the court shows how corporate executives that have the responsibility and power must make sure that the company comply with the law, or risk the probable criminal liability. (Kubasek,
Mr. Margolin’s lawsuit would be better address if he files it within the proper jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the power of the court to render a decision about the case in question. In this case we have the potential of three jurisdictions California, Florida and/or New York. Although, Mr. Margolin file suit against Novelty Now Inc. in the state of New York, the most appropriate jurisdiction would be in California. We know the business owners live in California and if we assumed that the servers and computer equipment are also based in California the court will have personal jurisdiction as well as subject-matter over the case in the state of California. The court can apply the personal jurisdiction rule if it can …show more content…
The purpose of criminal law is to punish offender who cause these harms. In a criminal case, society is seen as the victim and the state files charges against the defendant. In a civil case the victim is an individual(s) and an individual or corporation can file a suit. The lawsuit of Mr. Margolin against Novelty Now is a matter of civil case. Mr. Margolin is the individual and victim that files suit. Civil cases usually result in monetary damages or demands to cease or continue an action.
Novelty Now, substituted PYR (a low-cost chemical emulsifier) in its original formula under the direction of Chris, one of the owner of Funny Face. Under criminal laws, both elements of a crime are present: “actus reus” wrongful behavior and “mens rea” wrongful state of mind. The consequence of the wrongful behavior element is Mr. Margolin’s skin discoloration and Chris’ wrongful state of mind is evident of his negligent use of a non-FDA approved ingredient. Since Chris is one of the three co-founder/owner of Funny Face, he and the other owners Matt & Ian can be held liable of criminal act under the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine. (Kubasek, p.161) In United State v. Park. 421 U.S. 658. (1975). the court shows how corporate executives that have the responsibility and power must make sure that the company comply with the law, or risk the probable criminal liability. (Kubasek,