Assignment 1 - Week #1- Contract Law (ch. 11) A contract is...

This preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.

The preview shows page 1 - 2 out of 3 pages.
Philip GrayBSAD 4210Assignment 1I have the entire case for bothLandsberg v. Selchow & Richter Company and Glende MotorCompany v. Superior Court. - PGPART IChapter 1Case: Landsberg v. Selchow & Richter Company, 802 F.2d 1193 (1986)Facts: Mark Landsberg had the idea of creating a book that would give readers strategies andtips on how to win at the game “Scrabble”. Landsberg contacted Selchow & Richter Company,the company that owned and trademarked “Scrabble”, to obtain approval to use the trademarkin producing the book and Landsberg sent Selchow & Richter Company a manuscript of thebook upon S&R’s request. The 2 parties were in negotiations which ultimately ended with nodeal in place, but Selchow & Richter Company later released their own guide which had thesame premise as the one set forth by Landsberg. Landsberg sued the company for copyrightinfringement stating that S&R used his idea and created their own book. Landsberg stated thatthere was an implied-in-fact contract that S&R broke and he was owed restitution. The originalcourt sided with Landsbergand now S&R is appealing that decision.Issue: Is S&R liable for infringing on Landsberg’s rights by creating a book based off of his ideadespite no contract ever being agreed upon?Holding: Yes S&R did infringe up Landsberg’s rights and ideas and only negotiated with himlong enough to gather enough information to write their own book and is liable for damages andcompensation to Landsberg.A. Rule: S&R did infringe upon Landsberg’s rights and ideas and there was an implied-in-factcontract in place due to the fact that Landsberg sent his manuscript for the sole reason ofgaining permission to use the trademark. He did not divulge the information freely and due tothe fact that his ideas were used in the book S&R is liable. Additionally, the amount thatLandsberg was awarded may have been a little high, but it was allowable under California Law.B. Application: In this case the appeal by S&R is unfounded and the Appeals Court sides withLandsberg. S&R used his ideas and profited from it without his approval and is liable for thecompensation that the lower courts ruled that S&R owed Landsberg for restitution.Chapter 2Case:Glende Motor Company v. Superior Court, 159 Cal.App.3d 389, 205 Cal. Rptr. 682(1984)Facts:Glende Motor Company was a seller of cars who had filed an insurance claim after a fireat his leased property. Glende MC stated that they were owed for unpaid fire insurance moneyand was suing the leasors for that money. Once proceedings were started, but before phase twoof proceedings had started Glendewas presentedan “Offer to Compromise Before Trial” bythe defendents.Glende stated that he would accept the terms only if a new lease could bedrawn up as well. At that point Glende filed a"Plaintiff's Notice of Acceptance of Offer toCompromise"to accept the terms, but was later informed that the defendant’s bank (UnitedCalifornia Bank) had revoked the offer to compromise, but it was too late for Glende as they had

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 3 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
BlainH.Johnson
Tags
Mark LANDSBERG, Martin Katlain Imports

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture