Learning Activity 1
QA answer
Ohio court has the jurisdiction to handle this case but not Texas. Although the involved parties cut across the two states, Ohio has the personal jurisdiction because the Flower World Business is in that state. In other words, the defendant involved case is physically located in Ohio and this is the area where the investigation should be conducted. The best way to determine the jurisdiction is to look at the court that will have both personal and subject matter jurisdiction over the defendant of the case as argued by Orakhelashvili (n.d.).
QB Answer
Legally, the type of jurisdiction that exists over Flowers Inc. is personal jurisdiction. Both Rubin and his business operate under Ohio statutes which act as the legal basis for this jurisdiction. Therefore, courts in Ohio State have the ability and capability of hearing, giving a verdict for this case and determining the damages to be met by the defendant in the event of being found guilty.
QC Answer
I would advise Ross to use ADR in an event where Louise files the case in Texas. This is would provide a platform for him to use the Alternative Dispute Process to settle the issue amicably. If Louise files the case in Ohio then this implies that the issue is very serious and would be weighty for Flower World. This means that it would be difficult for Ross to apply ADR in handling the matter. Filing the case in Ohio would make the case relevant for Louise that increasing the chances of retrieving back the money used to buy the defective flowers. However, since Ross has filed a motion to render the case irrelevant based on lack of jurisdiction, it is advisable not to use ADR. In case he does so he will give the Texas court the power make approval to the case.
Learning Activity 2
QA Answer
Cullingworth (1988) reveals that the constitution gives people the right to exercise their basic rights. If I was the jury with regards to this case, I would hold the ordinance as constitutional because it does not violate basic rights of any company or individuals. The ordinance does not affect the freedom of speech or expression in the public at all (Eisner, 1939). The main purpose of the ordinance is to offer protection to citizens and foster ethics. Furthermore, the ordinance has banned the use of billboards on public roads but not on the other premises. With this arguments, my ruling regarding the case is that the ordinance is constitutional.
QB Answer
If I would assume the attorney advising City role, I would advise them to argue with regards to the Fifth Amendment so as to have a logical legal basis to allow them to enact the ordinance. The Amendment reveals individuals should not be deprived of their rights to life, property, and liberty without their consent (Weiss, 1983). It is clear that they the ordinance issued does not deprive the public of their rights. It only bans the use of billboards along the road. It does not ban the use of billboards in the other areas but only the roads (Lavine et al 1953). Such issuance does not affect the rights of citizens neither does it prevent the companies from running their advertisements. Anybody claiming others wishes may be irrelevant in handling the case. Provided every person enjoys his or her rights without any limitation the ordinance remains valid and protected by the Fifth Amendment as supported by Gale (2007).
References
Cullingworth, J. (1988). Planning, law and the US constitution. Cities, 5(3), 294-301.
Eisner, M. (1939). How government regulates business; an explanation of the principal federal and state laws which regulate business. New York: Dynamic America Press.
Gale, C. (2007). The business of business law. Managerial Law, 49(1/2), 10-12.
Lavine, S., Lyons, A. M., & Magnus, S. W. (1953). Advertisement Control. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 10(1), 162. doi:10.2307/824276
Lavine, S., Lyons, A. M., & Magnus, S. W. (1953). Advertisement Control. The University of Toronto Law Journal, 10(1), 162. doi:10.2307/824276
Orakhelashvili, A. (n.d.). State jurisdiction in international law: complexities of a basic concept. Research Handbook on Jurisdiction and Immunities in International Law, 1-49.
Weiss, L. A. (1983). Fifth Amendment: Fifth Amendment Exclusionary Rule: The Assertion and Subsequent Waiver of the Right to Counsel. The Journal of Criminal Law and
