Business Law Milestone 1 - BUS206:CaseStudyOne 1 BUS 206...

Info icon This preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

BUS 206: Case Study One 1 BUS 206: Case Study One Andrew Stevens Southern New Hampshire University
Image of page 1

Info icon This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

BUS 206: Case Study One 2 BUS 206: Case Study One This case has a lot of different parties and contains enough information that makes the case more difficult to dissect. When looking at this case it is most important to decide on three considerations: per- sonal jurisdiction, subject-matter jurisdiction, and minimum contacts. When applying these considerations it allows us to understand where the appropriate court for this lawsuit resides. Taking a look at personal jurisdiction, the power a court has over parties in the case, will clear up a lot of information. The constitution requires that the party have certain minimum contacts with the fo- rum in which the court sits. In this case personal jurisdiction isn’t an easy concept to apply when looking just on the surface. There are three different locations and parties being brought into the hearing. Funny Face is in California, Novelty Now is in Florida, and Mr. Margolin resides in New York where he is bringing suit to both of the other parties. The required minimum contacts in this case occurs via the inter- net and seems to be met, because minimum contacts can consist systematic and/or continuous contact with the forum state, or can be an isolated or occasional contact that were directed toward the state. (“Minimum Contacts” 2016) Funny Face is advertised nationally in newspapers, on radio shows, online, and on social media. An argument can be made that Funny Face deliberately and successfully exploited the New York market, which means the courts in New York have jurisdiction over Funny Face. Now looking at the case against Funny Face and bringing Novelty Now into the claim, if Mr. Margolin were to sue both parties it would require another type of consideration, subject-matter jurisdic- tion. Subject-matter jurisdiction is the authority of a court to hear cases of a particular type or cases relat- ing to a specific subject matter. (“Subject Matter” 2016) In this case, subject matter is simple to sort out.
Image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern