Brandal argued that Commercial Fisheries Entry Commissions (CFEC) had wrongly calculated his income dependence points under the Limited Entry Act and that he should have been awarded unavoidable and special circumstances points given his history in the fishery industry. He further claimed that the regulations relied upon by the (CFEC) were improperly promulgated under the Administrative Procedures Act and that delay to conclude the case violated his right to due process.
Finally, Brandal argued that he had invested so much in the fishing gears and denying him the limited license will disadvantaged him economically and career wise. Consequently, he wanted to be remedied under the doctrines of unreasonable delay and quasi-estoppel. Comments The ruling was meant to make people learn that when one does not meet the requirements of doing or receiving something, he or she should look for other opportunity early enough because justice always prevail no matter how long. In addition, people need to invest their monies when they are sure that they have the mandate to do that specific business.
Follow- Up Questions 1. Identified agency exists to secure the proper execution of public affairs and to further protect the rights and benefits of all citizens by the establishment of necessary guidelines concerning the protection of private information managed by computers of public agencies. 2. Identified administrative agency have the power to control its own process and make rules of general application to govern its own process; and the power to tailor model code procedures or to vary procedures of general application
3. An agency does work like setting hearing times and venues; ordering that separate proceedings be heard immediately one after the other; ordering that proceedings be stayed until after determination of other procedures; making interim procedural orders and granting adjournments. 4. An agency reports to the person he represents. Warranty tort case Facts Case: Shelley Jo Buettner, v. R. W. Martin and Sons, Incorporated. Court: United States District Court The plaintiff: Shelley Jo Buettner, Defendant: R. W.
Martin and Sons, Incorporated Issue R. W. Martin and Sons, Incorporated breached an implied warranty of merchantability resulting to amputation of Shelley Jo Buettner’s arm. Analysis Shelley Jo Buettner lost the case. Shelley Jo Buettner employer was knowledgeable about dangers associated with the flatwork ironer and specifically dangers of wearing loose fitting cloths that could become entangled in machinery. So the seller had a reason to believe that an employer would act to protect the safety of its employees.
Martin also had a reason to believe that (SHS) a commercial laundry with experience operating flatwork ironers would exercise care in instructing its employees in the correct use of the ironer. In addition, Shelley Jo Buettner had fourteen years experience with flatwork ironers and was aware of the dangers involved. As a result, Martin effectively disclaimed all warranties, including any implied warranty of merchantability Minority rationale(s)
Shelley Jo Buettner claimed that Martin failed to warn her of the dangers involved in using the flatwork ironer sold to the Shared Hospital Services (SHS) and as a result she was injured. In addition, she claimed to have not been barred by an express disclaimer in the sales contract between Martin and Shelley Jo Buettner’s employer on warranty of merchantability because she was not part of the contact. Comments People should not seek compensation when they get hurt because of their own carelessness at the course of discharging their duties. Follow- Up Questions
1. Torts involving primary businesses personal injury, fraud, breach of contract, embezzlement. 2. A warranty is an obligation or guarantee that an article or service sold is as factually stated or legally implied by the seller, and that often provides for a specific remedy such as repair or replacement in the event the article or service fails to meet the warranty. Three types of warranties include: Expressed warranty consisting of spoken dialogue at the point of sale or imbedded in a sale contract or written on a tag affixed to the good or sample.
Implied warranty is instituted and enforced by law and accompanying product as it changes ownership unless disqualified by contract. Implied warranty on merchability mandate that their goods and containers follow minimum quality specifications, must be able to meet the performance standards originally claimed by manufacturer. 3. Liability is imposed/implied, unless expressly disclaimed by name, or the sale is identified with the phrase “as is” or “with all faults.
” In addition, proof of negligence is not a pre-requisite for filing a law suit. If a consumer suffers a personal injury as opposed to property damage, a judge is less likely to employ these policies during the trial. 4. Negligence on the side of the companies comes in when they omit some words or instructions that are important in protecting life or health of the consumer. Otherwise, the warnings protect the companies from liability of negligence as long as it conveys the actual contents.
Contract Case: Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, LP v. Shoemaker Court: District Court The plaintiff: Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, LP The defendant: Shoemaker Issue Shoemaker broke the Non-Competition Agreement which they entered into with Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, LP which prohibited shoe maker from working with the Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, LP competitor immediately after quitting or being terminated before end of employment contract.
As a result, Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, LP sort court intervention to stop shoemaker from working for the competitor, make him pay the damages and finally make him pay the court fines as a result of his breach of non-competitive agreement. Analysis Judgment in favor of Shoemaker was affirmed. This is because it was established that under Mississippi law, restrictive covenants are disfavored restraints on trade and individual freedoms.
Basing it on the above and the following premises, shoemaker proved to have not broken the non- competitive agreements as interpreted as follows: The shoemaker completed its contract and was no longer contractually prohibited from immediately working for the competitor of Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, LP because the word termination meant a cessation of shoemaker’s employment before the end of contract and did not include the natural expiration of the Employment Agreement. So the Shoemaker did not breach the non-competitive agreement. Minority rationale(s)
The plaintiff argued that shoemaker broke the Non-competition agreement by working with the competitor and should be made to pay damages and legal fees as well as stopped from working for its competitors. This is because of the imminent competition that the shoemaker exposed Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, LP to. Comments The ruling was meant to provide a lesson to parties of an agreement who restrict or restraints the other party’s freedom. The parties should be in a position to properly understand the basis of the agreements in order to avoid seeking for unnecessary court injunctions.
The parties to an agreement should ensure that agreements should be mutually benefitting to both parties of the agreement and not disadvantage the other. Follow- Up Questions 1. In the above case the point of dispute was performance and acting in good faith. 2. Termination of LP was tantamount to breach considering the agreement was until the contract was performed. 3. Other elements include the consideration agreed upon might not have been attractive to LP; hence the decision to seek court intervention. 4.
The plaintiff could have had an option of re-entering the contract or just receiving compensation for the damages. 5. Contracts can be in writing when dealing with credit contracts and consumer leases, for example, contracts supplying credit or consumer mortgages; contracts for the sale of second hand motor vehicles by dealers; contracts for the sale of land, or any interest in or concerning land and door to door sales contracts where the total consideration payable by the consumer cannot be ascertained at the time that the contract is made or where the amount of the contracts exceeds.
References Abu Dhabi 2030, (2009, April 07), Red Bull Gmbh vs Chai Larbthanasub. Retrieved April 7 2009, from http://www. ameinfo. com/25260. html Inland Revenue, (2007, April 3), The case Peter Lloyd Machirus v The Commissioner of Inland Revenue. Retrieved April 7 2009, from http://www. ird. govt. nz/technical-tax/case-notes/2007/cn-20070403-bill-rights. html The Judicial View (2008) , The case Specialty Rental Tools & Supply, LP v. Shoemaker, 553 F. 3d 415 – C. A. 5, Dec. 17, 2008. Retrieved April 7 2009, from http://www. judicialview. com/Court-Cases