An Intentional Tort Action Against A Grape Producer

Bonny Doon Vineyards, a successful winery business based in Santa Cruz, California, has grown from selling 5,000 cases of wine a year in 1981 to 200,000 cases a year in 1999. To keep growing and be more profitable, the business must choose amongst three possible strategic directions. The first strategy is to start importing wines from Europe into the United States. The second alternative is branching into a retail outlet for unusual wines of great value, accompanied by a high level of service. Lastly, the business’ D.E.W.N could be expanded to include wines not made by the company itself but by other wineries that follow the same values and philosophy.

Smaller firms such as the family run operations in Europe may not be able to realize these same cost efficiencies. Furthermore, grapes represent 50 to 70% of a winemakers COGS, thus the competition for sourcing high quality grape growers is quite high. Just as Mondavi does for 75% of its purchases, most premium wine makers enter into long-term contracts with growers to not only ensure that their demand is met but also to make sure that they receive grapes that are consistent in quality.

In this case, there are several important issues to note. The initial issues is that a contract was signed by a minor acting on behalf of the company and not by a specified owner of the company. The question here is if this contract is legally binding and what recourse of actions the parties may have. The first step would be to consider the legality of the contract. In order for a contract to be legal it has to possess several important criteria. Contracts have to be communicated to the parties it effects clearly. (Kubasek 2015). In this case, the contract was not communicated at all to the owners of Muscadine grapes and it was also not

1.) Does Farmer have any claim(s) for damages against Pilot based on intentional tort? Discuss. Issue: The issue here is whether Farmer could prevail in court by filing a claim for damages against Pilot, based on the provisions of intentional tort law, and the five original intentional torts of 1.) Assault, 2.) Battery, 3.) Trespass to Land, 4.) Trespass to Chattel, and 5.) False Imprisonment.

Over the past decade, the increase in participation from recreational sporting activities to organized has increased significantly (Taniguchi, 2003). With more individuals taking part, the amount of injuries has escalated and the amount of negligent lawsuits soon followed. The courts have had to acclimate themselves and look at sporting injuries through the lens of tort law (Harvard Law Review, 2008). The landmark case in the state of California, Knight v. Jewett, the state supreme court upheld the original ruling that participants who knowingly cause injury to another contestant outside of the normal rules of conduct while participating in a sporting activity, are liable or negligent, changed the course how courts would rule in tort cases (Harvard Law Review, 2008). Hence, tort law is now a leading point of discussion in athletic and physical education departments in our local school districts (Taniguchi, 2003). Included in the discussion is intentional tort, when a player injuries another participant purposely (Wolohan, 2013). For intentional tort to be ruled on, three essentials must be present: 1.an injury must have occurred, 2. the cause of injury is due to a negligent act, 3. the act that caused the injury must be intentional (Wolohan, 2013). Thus, the merging of recreational activities, extreme sports, and physical education programs, intentional tort law will be looked at in the school setting.

Scenario: Grocery, Inc., is a retail grocery store chain based in Any State, U.S.A. Grocery has stores throughout the United States. Grocery has written contracts with many different vendors to purchase the products they sell in their stores. Vendors range from individuals to international corporations. Tom Green works as the produce manager for the store in My Town, U.S.A. Jeff Fresh, 17 years old, is spending his summer vacation working for Tom in the produce department.

The Grape producer which was my wife’s Sunday school teacher and I entered a professional business relationship after I revealed to him that I was interested in expanding and growing my business by adding new product lines. Subsequently, he introduced me to the Muscadine products that his family produced, resulting in me sampling the products and ultimately because of the product lines success, I increased shipments and heavily promoted the items

However, Bonny Doon is vulnerable and reliant on its suppliers, as 80% of the firm’s grapes are bought from external growers. Bonny Doon requires unpopular grape varieties and grapes that meet high quality specifications (which decreases agricultural yields and creates a trade-off for growers). They need to develop long-term relationships with the growers to ensure uniformity and high production quality with respect to the firm’s key product input: grapes. On the other side of the value chain, the firm has preferred small-medium sized distributors for their product. This has enabled them to retain higher profits, despite selling wine in smaller quantities.

Facts: The Ernest and Julio Gallo Winery are the holders of the trademark “Ernest & Julio Gallo.” The company Spider Webs Ltd. Had registered the domain name “ernestandjuliogallo.com.” Gallo requested they release the domain page to them, but Spider Web refused and were sued by Gallo. A summary judgment for Gallo issued an injunction to order the transfer of the domain name to Gallo under the ACPA. Which, Spider Web appeals. Spider was a limited partnership who registered domain names over 2000 and sells them on an Internet auction, not accepting bids less than $10,000. Spiders intent was to contract with Gallo to sell the domain, but never made and effort to do so.

While bargaining power of buyers is ranked the least important of the five factors for Mondavi’s strategy, its importance should not be understated. One of the Wine is typically sold to wholesalers who then distribute to retail outlets. With the decreasing number of wholesalers and the consolidation of retailers, buyers negotiating power is increasing. It is difficult for companies like Mondavi to make consistent profits and maintain market share if they cannot keep products on retailers’ shelves.

Similar to most cases that are brought through the judicial system, the circumstances of Marshall Petersen and the Muscadine grapes are complex and convoluted. One must not evaluate this matter solely based on what is ethically right or wrong. Rather, legal precedent must be evaluated to explore previous outcomes and the facts surrounding such results. Research begins with classic contract dispute concepts and further navigates based on the applicability of lesser known cases. The facts will guide all analysis of this contract dispute, leading to a decision based on an educated interpretation of the law.

The unintentional tort case that we have chosen to analyze through the use of various legal elements of tort law, is the wrongful death lawsuit filed against Porsche by Meadow Rain Walker for the death of her father, Paul Walker. On November 30th, 2013, famed movie star Paul Walker and friend, Roger Rodas, passed away in an unfortunate solo-vehicle collision in South California. At the time of the crash they were travelling in a 2005 Porsche Carrera GT when the car swerved off of the road and came in contact with a power pole and several trees before fire engulfed the car. Both Walker and Rodas perished due to injuries received in the crash.

The first case being in re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007). A panel of 3 judges with a split two-to-one decision determined the outcome for “signal” claims as patentable subject matter. The court decided that they are not. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences of the United States Patent and Trademark Office upheld the rejections of the signal claims and commented that they did so because the pending claims (14, 22, 23, and 24) did not specify any physical properties they only recited abstract properties of the signals. Thus the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences held that the claims in question did not fall into any of the four categories. - http://ratnerprestia.com/214?article=269

Because of a recent class action case, Harmless Harvest Inc. will be paying almost $1 million and changing the labels on their coconut water. This includes $575,000 in attorney fees and $350,000 in claims, administration, and notice costs. The company will also have to undergo an independent reviewing of their product labels for accuracy for a two-year period.

Sharon and Don decided to do business together via a verbal agreement. Don is already a small business owner of a local health food business. Sharon found out that Don was an owner of a business in the area after meeting him. Don became interested in Sharon’s family’s products once she showed him their products. Don and Sharon agree to sell samples of her family’s products in his store. When the products started selling well in Don’s store, he contacted Sharon to order more of the family’s products. For some time Don placed orders with Sharon’s family, and received awesome customer service. Sharon’s company would deliver the products that Don requested at the same rate and in a timely fashion. Upon receiving the order or orders, Don