Business Law Case Study
The issue for determination in this scenario is whether or not the service of process on Dr. Bardwell through his wife service was an effective service. An effective service of process is undertaken when the summons and complaint are handed to the defendant himself, but not any other person. Personal service of process in this case means that even when the complaint and summons are left where the defendant operates business or where he lives, and the agent therein accepts service and signs, it is considered to have been effected, even when it is delivered via registered mail. The mail must be accepted by the defendant or his authorized agent. The defendant cannot therefore be heard to rely on non-service to negate the court process. For example, Rule 4.04 of Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides that the process of service can be effected upon the defendant through his agent. Rule 4.04 (10) specifically provides that acceptance of service by the agent of the defendant is also service which is relied upon by the plaintiff as an effective service. Dr. Bardwell’s service was accepted by his wife at the doctor’s place of work. This service was effective as seen from the legal provisions above and his failure to enter appearance properly led to the default judgment. The judgment cannot therefore be altered on the grounds of ineffective process of service.
Equal protection
The issue for determination in this scenario is whether or not the New York City ordinance prohibiting topless entertainment by women in some locations of the city was a violation of the right to equal protection under the relevant clause. The Fourteenth Amendment on the Bill of Rights provides that every individual has a right to be protected by the state. This law requires that every citizen of the United States of America receives equal safeguards under the law without any form of discrimination. Any act of discrimination of any section of the population is prohibited by this clause unless the court can ascertain that the discrimination was rational or after a clause scrutiny the court finds that the action is based on a substantive ground. By choosing specific areas to protect against crime, ensuring equality and preserving property value, the ordinance clearly discriminates against the topless women offering entertainment in the excluded parts of the city. The court should therefore make a decision favoring Buzzetti, the anonymous dancer and the other topless dancers because the law has arbitrarily left them out of the protection scope.
Arbitrary and Capricious Test
Arbitrary and capricious test is a rule which is applied to decision making agencies or bodies which have to ensure that the decision concerning the issue of an individual is made with reference to fair administrative steps. It refers to subjective, uninformed and unreliable decision made by an agency. Requirements of fair administrative action must consider the reasons to be given by the individual against whom the decision is made. Otherwise such decision would be unlawful. What amounts to the unreliable and subjective decision of any agency is subjected to three tests; whether or not the agency gave reasons for making such decision, whether or not the policy in place was applied or it considered inappropriate factors. The National Transport Safety Board in failing to consider whether Manin understood the questions he was required to answer and relying on the fact that Manin did not disclose his previous convictions of felony amounted to arbitrary and capricious action. The agency therefore violated Manin’s rights.
Liquidated damages
The scenario of contract between Cohen and Windsor raises the issue of liquidated damages. Liquidated damages is a specific settled amount of money determined by parties in a contract to be used as a fine to the aggrieved party if a breach of the contract occurs. The party who has failed to discharge the duties or obligations in the contract is made to forego that agreed amount of money in order to soothe the damages caused to the party who fulfilled the obligations. In the case of Cohen and Windsor, Windsor failed to fulfill the contract terms and would therefore made to forego the 10% deposit she made to Cohen and as agreed in the contract. Cohen is right in withholding the deposit paid by Windsor.
Wrongful interference with a contractual relationship
Wrongful interference with a contractual relationship happens when a person who has contacted with another is intentionally talk into breaching that particular contract by an independent third party who has the information that the contract exists. The act of that third party is considered an interference with a contractual relationship and that interferer is liable in tort. In the case of Lumley versus Gye. In this case, the defendant had induced an actress contracted by the plaintiff to sing for him in his theater. He convinced the singer, Joanna that she should not sing for the defendant but for him. It was held by the court that the action of the defendant was an interference with the contract and was liable for damages in tort. In relation to the case of Lothar and Martha and the consequential braking of the relationship between Martha and Harley’s Bakery it is evident that Lothar intended to interfere with the relationship between Martha and Harley. He advertised widely both in radio and television, with full knowledge that Martha would be interested in contracting with his bakery. Furthermore, he had always longed to obtain a contract with the owner of Martha’s Tea Salon. He has in the circumstances intentionally interfered with the initial contract between Martha and Harley Bakery, and should be held liable in tort.
