Case Brief #5 & 6 Law Coursework Research Paper Essay (Coursework Sample)
The cases will come from the chapters in this section (Chapters) listed below. You can choose to brief any two of those cases. Please be sure to combine your two case briefs into one Word Document for submission. Each case brief should be about one page.
The format is discussed in the section entitled "Resources on how to brief cases." It will explain the exact information I am looking for. I would also keep in mind proper grammar.
TWO CASE BRIEFS from these chapters
Chapter 13 Chapter 19
Chapter 14 Chapter 20
You can read the eBook for this course and others offline through the Cengage App, available for your iPhone or Android.
Click BSAD 486
World-Wide Volkswagen Corp v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286 (1980).
Harry and Kay Robinson purchased a vehicle in New York in 1976. The following year they were driving the vehicle to their new home in Arizona. On their way to Arizona, they were passing through Oklahoma when they were struck by a drunk driver. The collision caused the vehicle’s doors to lock and a puncture in the car’s gas tank. As a result, a fire severely burned Ms. Robinson and her children.
Does Worldwide Volkswagen have sufficient “minimum contacts” with Oklahoma that would allow Oklahoma State courts to have jurisdiction?
No, Oklahoma state courts do not have jurisdiction over this matter because World-Wide does not have sufficient “minimum contacts” with the forum state.
A state court can exercise personal jurisdiction over a NON-RESIDENT defendant only if there are “minimum contacts” between the defendant and the forum state. Thus, the court must evaluate whether the actions of the defendant constitute “minimum contacts.”
The defendants did not solicit business in the state of Oklahoma through salespersons or advertising reasonably calculated to reach the state. The dealership was located in New York. It employed citizens from the surrounding areas to work at its location. It did not have a location in Oklahoma. It did not pay taxes in Oklahoma. It did not try to solicit business from Oklahoma.
The fact that a vehicle is mobile and could end up in the forum state does not qualify as the defendant having minimum contacts. Despite the fact that this is foreseeable, foreseeability alone cannot provide the basis of personal jurisdiction if there are no other contacts with the forum state.
The court shall not focus on the mere likelihood that a product will be found in a state; rather, it shall evaluate the defendant’s conduct and connection within the state. The court determined that a defendant should reasonably anticipate being brought into court there. The mere fact that a party brought the defendant’s product into a state does not meet this test.
Date of Submission:
Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States ARB (AF) 97/1(2000)
The plaintiff came up with a Mexican subordinate to construct hazardous-waste landfill in Guadalcazar that is situated in State of San Luis Potosi. The defendant promised the plaintiff that all the required permits would be issued. On the contrary, Guadalcazar denied issuance of a municipal construction permit. Basing the claim on Chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the plaintiff sued the plaintiff. This was based on the rule of law, which affirms that upon a country’s refusal or failure to keep their trade agreement promise involving issuance of any trade or project permit, the country is construed to have violated the foreign investment agreement.
By failing to issue all the requisite permits for execution of the project as promised, did the country violate the foreign investment agreement?
Yes. The defendant violated the foreign investment agreement by not issuing all permits required to execute the project.
When a country breaks its promise of issuing all the needed project permits, the country is said to have dishonored the foreign investment agreement. The NAFTA’s code of transparency states that in order to eliminate ambiguity, all lawful requirements that affect investments ought to be unveiled. The assumption arguendo regarding the necessity of the construction permit gave the defendant the authority to take charge of the over hazardous-waste valuations. On the contrary, the authority of Guadalcazar over such valuations was exclusively for issues regarding the construction of the landfill or site deficits. By
You Might Also Like Other Topics Related to drunk driving:
- The Autonomous Cars Technology Essay Research PaperDescription: The motor vehicle industry has not been left behind in regards to the tech enhancements that continue to characterize the 21st century. Over the recent past, several automotive companies including Tesla and Uber have been at the forefront of developing self-driving and autonomous vehicles....1 page/≈275 words | APA | Technology | Essay |
- Interoffice Memo: Evaluation of Uber’s Legal ExposureDescription: Agency law provides guidelines that govern the principal-agent relationship. This relationship is a contractual one and the parties to the agency have duties and obligations to each other as described by Jennings (2018). The first duty of the principal is referred to as the duty of compensation whereby...3 pages/≈825 words | Other | Law | Other (Not Listed) |
- WE-6-ASSN-1. The Levy Family. Health, Medicine, Nursing CourseworkDescription: Mr. Levy sees himself as a tired, fed up, stressed, and sick person. In his mind, he considers himself as sick of the world and the atmosphere around him. ...2 pages/≈550 words | APA | Health, Medicine, Nursing | Coursework |