Business Law Case Study
Issues
Was it a proper service when the summons was mailed to the defendant medical clinic?
Whether the Minnesota court should invalidate the Tennessee judgment.
Rule
The general principle under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is that service can be made personally to the defendant, left in their place of residence or business or through an email. For corporations or companies, Rule 4 (B) of the rules states that the summons can be delivered to the defendant’s agent authorized to receive such processes but a copy of the summons must be copied to each defendant. The rule is that the service must be made in the state in which the district court with jurisdiction over the case is located. Service by mail normally needs the consent of the defendant.
Analysis
In this case, Clint Pharm served process through a registered mail Dr. Bardwell who was Northfield’s registered agent but was received by Bardwell’s wife, hence this is not personal service as required by the law. Son the next question is whether the wife qualifies to be Bardwell’s legal agent. This will depend on whether she had a tacit or implied authority to receive such letters on her husband’s behalf and had in fact done so before and assumed to be proper service. However, because Rule of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires that a copy of the service sent by mail be copied also to the defendant, there was no proper service to either Northfield Urgent Care or Dr. Bardwell. Moreover, given that the contract provided that any suit for breach would be handled in Tennessee, the court should invalidate the Minnesota judgment for want of jurisdiction. The Minnesota court lacks personal jurisdiction over Dr. Bardwell.
Conclusion
In light of the lack of proper service to Dr. Bardwell and the fact that it lacks jurisdiction going by the contractual provision, the court should not enforce the Minnesota judgment.
Issue
Was the New York City Ordinance in violation of the US equal protection clause under the Fourteenth Amendment?
What standard applies to the court’s consideration of such an ordinance and which tests should the court rely upon in making a determination?
Rule
The principle of law under the Fourteenth Amendment is that no state or government can enact laws treating individuals who are similarly situated differently. Any state law shall not, under this Amendment, purport to limit, restrict or regulate the liberty of some group of persons and no other groups or unfairly distinguish between individual persons. The courts normally apply the strict scrutiny, the rational basis test and intermediate scrutiny as the standards for determining a violation of the equal protection clause (Kelso 227; Garry 152).
Analysis
Applying the rule to the facts, the court should apply the strict scrutiny standard in determining whether there is violation of the equal protection clause. Here, the court examines whether the classification, action or law that distinguishes between individuals is necessary in promoting compelling interests of the state. Based on this standard therefore, the court should rule that the ordinance is legal and not in violation of the equal protection clause as it seeks to preserve urban life quality and prevent crimes which are compelling interests of the state.
Conclusion
In summary, the Ordinance does not violate the equal protection clause as it is well intentioned despite the fact that it may discriminate the female gender.
Issues
Was the NTSB’s decision or action of departing from its usual policy in determining Michael Manin’s application without giving him an explanation and eventually revoking his certification arbitrary or capricious?
Rule
The general rule in determining whether an administrative agency’s action is arbitrary or capricious is that regard must be had to whether the agency has failed to provide a rational explanation for its decision, departed from its prior policy unreasonably and unjustifiably and whether it has taken in to account legally inappropriate factors
Analysis
Applying these rules to the facts, it may be argued rightly that the agency’s action of revoking Manin’s certification was arbitrary and capricious since it failed to give him a reasonable explanation at all and also unjustifiably departed from its usual policy hence prejudicing the applicant
Conclusion
The agency’s actions were an epitome of a government authority running amok hence should be declared unlawful for being arbitrary due to lack of reasons for the revocation.
Issues
Was the contractual term on liquidated damages to be paid by either party in breach of the contract reasonable, valid, legal and therefore enforceable?
Was Windsor’s breach of the contract, if any, entitle Cohen to keep the $10000 deposit or is Windsor entitled to the $10000?
Rule
The legal principle or rule on enforceability of liquidated damages is that when determining the validity of a contractual provision on liquidated damages, it must be considered, first, whether it was apparent at the beginning of the contract, that it would be difficult to estimate damages in case of breach. Secondly, it must be considered whether the amount of damages stipulated under the contract was excessive or a reasonable estimation.
Analysis
Conclusion
Hence, in summary, it may be argued that Cohen is right since Windsor breached the contract and hence he Cohen was entitled to keep the deposit as per the terms of the contract.
Issue
Is Lothar liable to Harley’s Bakery for the tort of wrongful interference with a contractual relationship?
Is Martha liable for a similar tort?
Rule
The rule is that for liability to exist for this tort there must be in existence a valid enforceable contract between two parties, knowledge of the existence of this contractual relationship and the inducement by the third party of a party to the contract in order for them to breach the existing contract. Moreover, as was held in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v Sturges (2001), the plaintiff needs to prove that the conduct by the defendant was independently wrongful or tortious. Further, according to the rule in Golembeski v.Metichewan Grange (1990), an improper means or motive on the defendant’s part must be proved by the plaintiff. The defendant must have disseminated misleading, malicious or false information relating to plaintiff’s current or prospective customers as was held in Floor Graphics Inc. v. News Am. Marketing In-Store Serv., Inc. (2006).
Analysis
Newman and Ellis argue that courts will no entertain claims for tort of interference with a contractual relationship where the defendant’s action is a legitimately competitive economic activity that is in tandem with free market economy (20). From the facts, there is no evidence that Lothar’s motive through the advert was to induce Martha’s and Harley Bakery’s contractual relationship since it did not spread false, misleading or malicious information about Harley’s Bakery. His was a genuine and healthy competitive act which was legal. However, Martha certainly had improper motives for breaking the contract with Harley’s Bakery as she wanted to patronize Lothar back.
Conclusion
Owing to this, Lothar is not liable for the tort of interference with a contractual relationship due to lack of improper inducement while Martha could be liable since she maliciously ended the contract with Harley’s bakery.
Works Cited
Garry, Patrick M. "Judicial review and the "hard look" doctrine." Nevada Law Journal 7 (2006): 151-170. Print.
KelsJ, R Randall. "Standards of review under the equal protection clause and related constitutional doctrines protecting indivividual rights: The "base plus six" model and modern Supreme Court practice." Journal of Constituional Law 42 (2002): 225-259. Print.
Newman, Zachary G and Anthony P Ellis. "Navigating the nuances of tortious intrference claims." Business Torts Journal 18.4 (2011): 20-23. Print.
Smith, George Bundy and Thomas Hall. "Determining the validity of liquidated damages provisions." The New York Law Journal 24732 (2012): 1-2.
