Business Law/Case Study

Posted: August 12th, 2013

Name:

Lecturer:

Course:

Date:

Business Law/Case Study

2.1       In Bertram versus Norden, the plaintiff sued the defendant on two grounds. He felt that they were liable to him because of the negligence they showed. First, the snow mobile belonged to one of the defendants. Secondly he felt that they did not take due diligence in ensuring his safety. Olson, Harvey and Norden, did not take extra precautions to ensure that he did not get hurt. Bertram thus felt that the three were liable to pay him. They should compensate him for the pain and suffering that he endured from the trip. Bertram’s claims were however barred by the courts. He claims that according to Ohio law he should be compensated. This is because all the parties involved are residents of Ohio. This however is not the case. According to Michigan law the defendants do not have a case to answer. The accident took place in Michigan and therefore Michigan’s laws apply.

The plaintiff feels that he should be compensated. However, the law is not on his side. Though he would have had a case in Ohio, Michigan’s law applies in this case. Since the accident happened in Michigan, the courts used Michigan’s law when ruling. The defendants also argued that the plaintiff should have learned how to drive a snow mobile. This would have prevented him from getting hurt. Just because the snow mobile belonged to someone else does not make the owner liable. Ignorance is not a defense according to the law. The plaintiff should know how to operate a snow mobile. He therefore has no right to sue the owner because of his own ignorance. In standing to sue, it means that a plaintiff must have some stake in the suit. In this case, the plaintiff has no stake.

2.2       Federal courts are limited to the type of cases they oversee. They only listen to federal cases. These cases cover federal questions. The questions are any that cover U.S charter, agreements and federal law. In Nutrilab, Inc. vs. Schweiker, the plaintiff disputed the Food and Drugs Administration decision. They food and drugs administration had argued that Starch Blockers was a drug. They wanted it removed from the market until they had been able to test the product. They claimed that they had a right to approve the product before it is sold to the public. The food and drugs administration felt that it was their right to classify any new products as drugs. This is because they were sanctioned by the public to protect their health. Therefore, any product that is new in the market first has to be approved by them. Nutrilab felt that the decision was unfair. This is because the Starch Blockers according to them was not a drug.

The case should be heard in federal court. This is because federal courts have jurisdiction over this case. The Food and Drugs Administration is a branch of the government. It was created under the constitution of the United States. It acts as a watchdog to protect consumers against harmful foods and drugs. The case questions a decision by a body that was created from the constitution. Therefore, a federal question arises. The federal courts have jurisdiction over such cases. Nutrilab is therefore justified to take the defendant to this court. The case was heard in 1983 and the court ruled in favor of the defendants. Starch Blockers was found to be a drug as it exhibits side effects of drugs. The Food and Drug Administration was not consulted by the company when the product was manufactured. The manufacturers are required by law to file any new drugs for approval by the FDA. They had not done so. Upon the federal court’s ruling, they were required by law to do so. The FDA would then do tests on the drug to ensure that it was safe for the public consumption. If it were found to be safe, they would be allowed to sell it to the public.

2.3       The forum-selection clause is a provision in a contract that delegates a particular court to hear a case concerning any disputes that two parties have. The clause determines where the parties involved are obligated to take their case to be heard. In Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. versus Shute, the plaintiffs have sued the cruise ship company for negligence. Mrs. Shute was injured when she was aboard one the cruise ships. She felt that she should be compensated for the pain and suffering that she went through. Mrs. Cruise and her husband had signed a contract with the cruise company. They therefore felt that the company was liable for their well-being. Since she got hurt due to the cruise ship’s negligence, they should pay her.

A forum-selection clause’s work is to reduce uncertainty and eliminate chances of having costly pretrial motions. The cruise ship does regular voyages across the cost of United States, the want to reduce the incidences of lawsuits. The forum-selection clause in the Cruise’s ticket is enforceable. This is because clause is fair and reasonable. If Mr. and Mrs. Shute still feel that Carnival Cruise ship has a case to answer, they should file a case with courts in the state of Florida. The defendant is not liable according to the courts in the state of Washington. The forum-selection clause is therefore enforceable in this case.