Why do you think that the judge describes a certain approach to verbal contracts as “common sense”

Answers to Questions

Why do you think that the judge describes a certain approach to verbal contracts as “common sense” and what is that approach? (Case 18-1)

Common sense is a sound practical judgment and level of intelligence that is exercised in a relationship between two people or more, and is consistent with the decision of an ordinary person or persons. In Girolamo Afonica, the judge applied common sense when he decided that no debt can be non-dischargeable, and those owed are always obliged to pay no matter the circumstances. Similarly, the judge ruled that if a debtor fails to pay alone, that is considered as breaching the peace, and the creditor is allowed to take possession of same amount with that he owed. Additionally, the creditor is allowed to sell, transfer, or lease the collateral in order to recover the amount he or she owed. Most the decisions by the judge are meant to favor the secured party because at the moment a debt is defaulted, he or she automatically becomes the disadvantaged party.

If FIFRA did not regulate Pursuit and Pursuit Plus, and Cyanamid had put the label on voluntarily, would the label then have constituted an express warranty? Why or why not?  (Case 25-1)

The American Pasta Italian company sold dried pasta product under the label “American Favorite Pasta”. The label did no go well with New World Past Company and who demanded that American Italian should cease from using the name. The two companies used the Lanham Act to show violations of the rights with American Pasta bringing up a declaratory claim and New World counterclaiming. In other words, the label “American Favorite Pasta” would have constituted an express warranty or not depending on the interpretation followed. If it is an express warranty, then American Pasta would be entitled to use because it corresponds with its name. However, the label can also not be an express warranty since it conveys the product as nationwide yet it is not because not more 50% of American subscribe to it.

In what way did Judge Agid simplify the case? Is it fair to say the Judge oversimplified the case? (Case 23-1)

Judge Agid simplified the case by narrowing down to Kramer and Grigg. According to judge, these two individuals were responsible for profit making as the sole owners of the limited partnership. The judge therefore disqualified the possibility that the limited partnership being ‘securities”. The judge quotes that securities enables the company management to receive full information about purchased securities. Since the Kramer and Grigg were the owners of the limited partnership, they were supposed to feed themselves with enough information about the securities.  Additionally, the majority’s justification about the result could not hold since it could not hurt the corporate veil. In the end, based on the above simple facts, the judge dismissed the complaints since the transaction issues raised did not involve company securities.

Novamedix asks the court to simplify the case. How so? What rule does the court choose instead of a simple one? Why do you suppose the court chooses a more complicated analysis than the one Novamedix prefers? (Case 21-1)

The court follows the actions that a plaintiff must take in order to prove tortious interference. First, the plaintiff must prove that with reasonable probability that parties were in contractual relationship Secondly, he or she must also prove that the defendant acted in a manner likely to break the relationship. Thirdly, the plaintiff must show that defendant knew that the course of action he or she was taking was likely to break the relationship. Lastly, the plaintiff must prove that they suffered harm or damage as result of the actions of the defendant on the contractual relationship. The above factors were then used to determine whether Brown’s name was actually defamed by the defendant. . One must also remember that defamation is an irreversible act that the court must make a decision in favor of the plaintiff. In the end, the court ruled in favor of Brown by affirming the judgment of the trail court.