Case Study - David Tr inh 16:24:32 LAW-310 Professor G H icks Case Study(Vian vs Carey 1 Why did the court find for Carey a The court found all the

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
David Trinh 16:24:32 LAW-310 Professor G. Hicks Case Study (Vian vs. Carey) 1. Why did the court find for Carey? a. The court found all the information for Carey because she was an 18- year-old which achieved stardom. Carey made a verbal agreement with her stepfather that she will give him a “Mariah doll” the stepfather sued Carey because she made a verbal promise but the court found that the plaintiff has adduced no evidence that defendant ever intended by a nod of her head or the expression “okay” to enter into a complex commercial licensing agreement involving dolls in her likeness plating her copyrighted songs. 2. As noted in the text, in UCC cases judges fill in contract terms where the parties clearly intended a deal. Should the court here fill in the missing terms to provide the necessary definiteness? Explain. a. I don’t think the court should fill in the missing terms to provide the necessary definiteness because I think it’s pretty much clear that Carey’s stepfather asked her at the wrong time. If they both want to
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 10/07/2009 for the course LAWS 310 taught by Professor Latonn during the Spring '09 term at DeVry Sherman Oaks.

Page1 / 2

Case Study - David Tr inh 16:24:32 LAW-310 Professor G H icks Case Study(Vian vs Carey 1 Why did the court find for Carey a The court found all the

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online