Bundle: The Legal Environment Of Business: Text And Cases, 10th + Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card
10th Edition
ISBN: 9781337374835
Author: CROSS
Publisher: CENGAGE L
expand_more
expand_more
format_list_bulleted
Question
Chapter 27, Problem 3BCP
Summary Introduction
Case summary: Company DVRC was involved in developing a resort for skiing near the Park city. It sold land parcels to the third party in the resort village. Each sales contract done by the company kept the right of approval to conduct certain businesses on the possessions including ski rentals. For about 15 years Company DVRC granted permission to company CS to rent skies in competitions with the ski rental outlet of DVRC. DVRC opened a new mid-mountain ski rental outlet and rescinded the permission to rent skis of the company CS. CS filed a suit in federal district court against DVRC.
To find: The actions of DVRC was an attempt to create
Expert Solution & Answer
Trending nowThis is a popular solution!
Students have asked these similar questions
When OTES developed its first online application for university math courses, BD sued both OES and Gone. BD contends that Gone has breached his covenant not to compete, because he is engaging in a competitive business in online learning resources in university-level math and science and that he has proprietary information regarding the development of science and math tutorial programs. BD further contends that OTES is engaging in tortious interference with contract. BD is Gone and OTES deny the claims, and state that Gone has not violated his employment agreement, because they are not engaging in a competitive business with BD.
The law in Georgia was recently amended to include the following provisions: A covenant not to compete must be reasonable in terms of time, geographical area, and prohibited activities. A time period longer than 2 years is presumed to be unenforceable. The courts are permitted to blue-pencil (or reform) covenants that are otherwise unenforceable.…
1. Basic Research LLC advertised its products on television networks owned by Rainbow Media Holdings Inc through an ad agency Icebox Advertising Inc. As Basic’s agent Icebox had express authority to buy ads from Rainbow on Basics behalf, but the authority was limited to buying ad with cash in advance. Despite this limit Rainbow sold ads to Basic through Icebox on credit. Basic paid Icebox for the ads, but Icebox did not pass all of the payments on to Rainbow. Icebox filed for bankruptcy. Can Rainbow recoup the unpaid amounts from Basic? Explain.2. Western Fire truck Inc contracted with Emergency One Inc (EO) to be its exclusive dealer in Wyoming and Colorado through Dec. 2003. James Costello, a Western Salesperson, was authorized to order EO vehicles for hi customers. Without informing Western, Costello emailed EO about Westerns diffuclties obtaining cash to fund its operations. He asked about the viability of Westerns contract and his possible employment with EO. On EO’s…
Rensselaer Water Company contracted with the city of Rensselaer to provide water to the city for use in homes, public buildings, industry, and fire hydrants. During the term of the contract, a building caught fire. The fire spread to a nearby warehouse and destroyed it and its contents. The water company knew of the fire but failed to supply adequate water pressure at the fire hydrant to extinguish the fire. The warehouse owner sued the water company for failure to fulfill its contract with the city. Can the warehouse owner enforce the contract? Explain.
Chapter 27 Solutions
Bundle: The Legal Environment Of Business: Text And Cases, 10th + Mindtap Business Law, 1 Term (6 Months) Printed Access Card
Knowledge Booster
Similar questions
- Sony Corporation manufactured and sold home video recorders, specifically Betamax videotape recorders (VTRs). Universal City Studios, Inc. (Universal), owned the copyrights on some programs aired on commercially sponsored television. Individual Betamax owners frequently used the device to record some of Universal’s copyrighted television programs for their own noncommercial use. Universal brought suit, claiming that the sale of the Betamax VTRs to the general public violated its rights under the Copyright Act. It sought no relief against any Betamax consumer. Instead, Universal sued Sony for contributory infringement of its copyrights, seeking money damages, an equitable accounting of profits, and an injunction against the manufacture and sale of Betamax VTRs. Explain whether Universal will prevail in its action.arrow_forwardB. Hawkeye Bank & Trust and affiliated banks agreed to refer bank customers to Financial Marketing Services, Inc. (FMS) for the purchase of life insurance. Hawkeye and FMS shared the commissions. Hawkeye employees and some independent agents licensed through FMS made the actual sales; however, all insurance business was FMS’ property. Because of concern about the confidentiality of bank customer information, Hawkeye decided to terminate its contract with FMS and sell insurance directly to its customers. The independent agents claimed Hawkeye terminating the contract with FMS constituted intentional interference with the agents’ contracts and prospective relations. Was it? Explain your position.arrow_forwardIn 1923, DuPont was granted the exclusive right to make and sell cellophane in North America. In 1927, the company introduced a moisture-proof brand of cello- phane that was ideal for various wrapping needs. Although more expensive than most competing wrapping, it offered a desired combination of transparency, strength, and cost. Except for its permeability to gases, however, cellophane had no qualities that a number of competing materials did not possess as well. Cellophane sales increased dramatically, and by 1950, DuPont produced almost 75 percent of the cellophane sold in the United States. Nevertheless, sales of the material constituted less than 20 percent of the sales of “flexible packaging materials.” The United States brought an action, contending that by so dominating cellophane production, DuPont had monopolized a part of trade or commerce in violation of the Sherman Act. DuPont argued that it had not monopolized because it did not have the power to control the price of…arrow_forward
- Cari enters a single-agency relationship with a listing broker, who owes her full disclosure and loyalty. The listing broker then finds Buyer Bonnie who wants that same broker to represent her in a transaction broker relationship, providing Bonnie with certain duties such as limited confidentiality. Can the broker represent Cari in a single-agency relationship AND represent Bonnie as a transaction broker in the same transaction? No, because offering Bonnie limited confidentiality would conflict with the full disclosure already owed to Cari. Yes, but only if the limited confidentiality owed to Bonnie is needed to fulfill Cari's objective of selling the property. Yes, as long as the broker tries to be fair to br + parties.arrow_forwardToby's Doggie Hotel enters into a contract with ABC Marketing to purchase 100 orange frisbees for $300.00. Toby's Doggie Hotel repudiates the contract and ABC later resells the frisbees to someone else for $250.00. a. ABC is not entitled to recover from Toby's Doggie Hotel b. ABC is entitled to recover $50.00 from Toby's Doggie Hotel c. ABC is entitled to recover $250.00 from Toby's Doggie Hotel d. ABC is entitled to recover $300.00 from Toby's Doggie Hotelarrow_forwardMelodee Lane Lingerie Co. was a tenant in a building that was protected against fire by a sprinkler and alarm system maintained by the ADT security company. Because of the latter's fault, the controls on the system were defective and allowed the discharge of water into the building, which damaged Melodee's property. When Melodee sued ADT, its defense was that its service contract limited its liability to 10% of the annual service charge made to the customer. Was this limitation valid? [Melodee Lane Lingerie Co. v. American District Telegraph Co., 218 N.E.2d 661 (N.Y.)]arrow_forward
- In 1961, Ford Motor Company acquired Autolite, a manufacturer of spark plugs, in order to enter the profitable aftermarket for spark plugs sold as replacement parts. Ford and the other major automobile manufacturers had previously purchased original equipment spark plugs (those installed in new cars when they leave the factory) from independent producers such as Autolite and Champion, either at or below the producer’s cost. The independents were willing to sell original equipment plugs so cheaply because aftermarket mechanics often replace original equipment plugs with the same brand of spark plug. GM had already moved into the spark plug market by developing its own division. Ford decided to do so by means of a vertical merger under which it acquired Autolite. Prior to the Autolite acquisition, Ford bought 10 percent of the total spark plug output. The merger left Champion as the only major independent spark plug producer. Champion’s market share thereafter declined because Chrysler…arrow_forwardDenver Corporation of Colorado provides welding services for large projects, customized furniture. It does not advertise or otherwise solicit business in Oregon. Medford Industries, Inc., an Oregon high-end furniture store, contracted with Denver to ship metal furniture from Oregon to Colorado. After thirty-two transactions, Medford filed a suit in an Oregon state court against Denver, alleging breach of contract. Can the Oregon court exercise jurisdiction? a. No, because Denver Corporation did not advertise or solicit business in Oregon and therefore did not deliver their services into the stream of commerce there. b. Yes, because the furniture came from Denver. c. Yes, because 32 transactions satisfy the minimum-contacts test for determining whether a state can exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state business. d. No, because Medford Industries contacted Denver Corporation. Denver did not contact Medford and therefore Denver did not…arrow_forwardDenny’s Marina Inc. filed an antitrust action, described more fully below, against various defendants: the Renfro Defendants (Renfro Productions Inc.; Indianapolis Boat, Sport, and Travel Show Inc.; and individuals connected with those firms), CIMDA (the Central Indiana Marine Dealers Association), and the Dealer Defendants (various boat dealers that competed with Denny’s in the sale of fishing boats, motors, trailers, and marine accessories in the central Indiana market). The Renfro Defendants operated two boat shows each year, one in the spring and one in the fall, at the Indiana State Fairgrounds. At the time of the litigation, the spring show had occurred annually for more than 30 years and was one of the top three boat shows in the United States. It attracted between 160,000 and 190,000 consumers each year. The fall show was a smaller operation that had occurred each year since 1987. Numerous boat dealers participated in the two shows. Denny’s participated in the fall show in…arrow_forward
- Moore ran a bakery in Santa Rosa, New Mexico. His business was wholly intrastate. Meads Fine Bread Co., his competitor, engaged in an interstate business. Meads cut the price of bread in half in Santa Rosa but made no price cut in any other place in New Mexico or in any other state. This price-cutting drove Moore out of business. Moore then sued Meads for damages for violating the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts. Meads claimed that the price-cutting was purely intrastate and, therefore, did not constitute a violation of federal statutes. Was Meads correct? Why or why not?arrow_forwardKenneth Thomas brought suit against his former employer, Kidder, Peabody & Company, and two of its employees, Barclay Perry and James Johnston, in a dispute over commissions on sales of securities. When he applied to work at Kidder, Peabody & Company, Thomas had filled out a form, which contained an arbitration agreement clause. Thomas had also registered with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). Rule 347 of the NYSE provides that any controversy between a registered representative and a member company shall be settled by arbitration. Kidder, Peabody & Company is a member of the NYSE. Thomas refused to arbitrate, relying on Section 229 of the California Labor Code, which provides that actions for the collection of wages may be maintained “without regard to the existence of any private agreement to arbitrate.” Perry and Johnston filed a petition in a California State court to compel arbitration under Section 2 of the Federal Arbitration Act. Should the petition of Perry and…arrow_forwardPalatka Costumes & Caps LLC ("PC & C") is a large props company formed in 1957, and Frodo Flags Corporation is a small, local flag manufacturer formed in 2015. These two businesses never had any dealings with each other until they recently entered into a contract, with terms all drafted by PC & C. The contract provides that PC & C shall purchase 1,000 flags that Frodo Flags will specially design for PC & C. The contract further provides that PC & C has the right to initiate, on a weekly basis, purchase orders of up to 100 flags until the contract's total number of flag purchases - 1,000 flags has been met. Also, the contract includes a clause stating that PC & C can cancel its obligation to pay for the remaining flags at any time if any Frodo Flags shipment does not arrive on the exact day as stated in a particular purchase order; this last provision is included in the contract even though time was of little importance to PC & C. W The first shipment of 100 flags arrives a day late,…arrow_forward
arrow_back_ios
SEE MORE QUESTIONS
arrow_forward_ios
Recommended textbooks for you
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student EditionBusinessISBN:9781337407137Author:KellyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...BusinessISBN:9781337386494Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana LoewyPublisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)BusinessISBN:9780134474021Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. SteinbartPublisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...BusinessISBN:9781259929441Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. HultPublisher:McGraw-Hill Education
BUSN 11 Introduction to Business Student Edition
Business
ISBN:9781337407137
Author:Kelly
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Essentials of Business Communication (MindTap Cou...
Business
ISBN:9781337386494
Author:Mary Ellen Guffey, Dana Loewy
Publisher:Cengage Learning
Accounting Information Systems (14th Edition)
Business
ISBN:9780134474021
Author:Marshall B. Romney, Paul J. Steinbart
Publisher:PEARSON
International Business: Competing in the Global M...
Business
ISBN:9781259929441
Author:Charles W. L. Hill Dr, G. Tomas M. Hult
Publisher:McGraw-Hill Education