LEGAL DISCUSSION CASES 4
Case1: Bertramv. Norden, et al
Thelawsuit involving Bertram V. Norden et al applies in Ohio State. TheOhio Supreme court holds that anyone injured as a result ofcarelessness or fault of a co-participant is entitled tocompensation. It is clear that Bertram sustained injuries due tocarelessness of other co-participants, in this regard he is expectedto claim compensation for his medical expenses, suffering and pain,lost of wages due to the fact that he will likely be out of work andfinally he can claim compensation for loss of quality life due to theseriousness and likeliness of permanent injuries.
Itis therefore very important for Bertram to obtain the defenders’insurance information to validate his claim. However such a claim isnot possible in the State of Michigan. This is mostly due to theopposing law held in Michigan Supreme Court that bars anyone claimingfor compensation from a recreational activity, like snowballing thatcarries with it voluntary assumptions of built-in risks. It prohibitsan injured participant from claiming for compensation as a result ofinjuries occurring from such built-in risks.
Case2: Amazon.com,Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc.
WhileAmazon.com was waiting for the application to patent the one systemclick rights, other online retailers like Barnesandnoble.comdeveloped this system. As a result Amazon.com sued the latter onlineretail company. However the one click system was rather too obviousto patent and therefore was not qualified for patent rights thatAmazon.com sought to achieve. This is primarily because of the factthat there exist systematic steps that guarantee this process to besuccessful. Patent rights are issued to any inventions of art ortechnology that have carefully completed a successful systematicprocess. However Amazon.com applied the existing and obviousknowledge of the functions of cookies. Cookies are computer textswhich are typically small and they have the main function ofremembering the computer user’s activity in the web. Therefore theyare very important to most online companies and websites businesses.The use of this existing technological knowledge did not result tobeing termed as inventions and therefore did not qualify Amazon.comfor patent protection.
Case3: Dementasv. Estate of Tallas
Thecourt cannot sufficiently change any contracts or written wills onbehalf of the parties concerned. The main function of the court is toenforce written contracts or wills. However the memorandum that wasentered between Tallas and Dementas was reasonably out of good faith.There is strong binding force that is present in that memorandum thatwas clearly signed by two parties who were clearly in good faith.Hence the promise of a promissory offer of $50,000 cash from the realestate that would occur after the will was changed does not give theright to the estate owners to reject it. In addition this mutuallyentered memorandum between Tallas and Dementas who are clearly in theright capacity is a binding obligation and therefore may be enforcedregardless to occurrence of death of one party. The writtenmemorandum shows clear consent through the legal signatures of bothparties. In this regard a general rule is applicable that allows forconsideration to validate the promise.
Case4: Hoffmanv. Sun Valley Company
Anexisting policy regarding contracts requires that there is fullformation of such contracts entered by competent parties meant forlawful objections. Hoffman and Frey entered into an oral contractwith Sun Valley Company that is identified as express contract.Through a telephone conversation, both parties reached into anagreement that finalized the sale of Raud Mountain Properties with acomplete term of payment. In addition this sale was approved legallyby the executive committee of the selling company. In this regard thewinner results to be Hoffman and Frey because there is a definiteoral offer that demonstrates legal consent.