Case Analysis : Hawaiian Telephone Co. V. Microform Data Systems, Inc.

For summary judgment to be granted, the movant must show “that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The appellate standard of review for reviewing summary judgment orders in this case is the de novo standard, as this is a decision regarding “mixed questions of law and fact”. Barr v. Lafon, 538 F.3d 554, 562 (6th Cir. 2008).

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

M international (M) and W Inc (W) decided to enter a long term litigation, due to a patent rights violation. M being the demandant and W the respondent. Not enough information was provided in relation to the charges or the patent.

Some facts include that the person who started the case was going through some serious pain. the argument was that a 500 milligram midazolam will not make someone unable to feel pain being held at a district court. the majority opinion is that it does make them unable to feel pain, the chief justices were there saying that. The dissenting opinion is that it doesn't make them unable to feel pain with almost no justices supporting. Cases that were refered to were Baze v Rees, Winter v Natural Resource Defense Council, and United States v Detroit timber and lumber co.

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

that the jury’s decision was inequitable or out-of-line with Mississippi policy governing contract disputes and unjust enrichment.

The court ruled that the trial court’s grant of summary judgment was correct for the promissory estoppels claim. The plaintiff’s breach of contract claim case was remanded back to the lower court for further determination.

Brewster Heights Packing, the buyer entered a contract with the seller for the purchase of apple packing machinery. The district court entered judg-ment in favor of the seller on its breach of contract claim. On appeal, the court af-firmed. The buyer contended that both it and the seller intended at the time of their con-tract to be bound by their written agreement and to prior oral discussions. The buyer contended that the largest portion of its damages stemmed from the loss of an orally bargained-for system. The court held that a clause in the parties’ contract prohibited the inclusion of any understandings or representations not expressly included in the con-tract. It appeared that the buyer intended to use the parol evidence not to explain or to supplement the contract, but rather to contradict the limitation of warranties contained in the contract. The court concluded that the buyer’s counterclaims of fraud and viola-tion of the Washington Consumer Protection Act failed because they did not give rise to the independent tort of fraud and there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate an ef-fect on other consumers or a real and substantial potential for repetition of unfair con-duct.

“‘Under this statute, the reviewing court shall determine only: (1) the legality of the decision and (2) whether there was substantial evidence from the record as a whole to support the decision.’” Thomas v. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 170 Md. App. 650, 657 (2006) (quoting Dep’t of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation v. Hinder, 349 Md. 71, 77-78 (1998)). Moreover, “[w]e ‘may not reject a decision of the Board supported by substantial evidence unless that decision is wrong as a matter of law.’” Thomas, supra, 170 Md. App. at 658 (quoting Hernandez v. Dep’t of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation, 122 Md. App. 19, 23 (1998)).

wrote for the majority of the historic decision (Liptak, 2015, para. 2). Moreover, the majority

our contract and was not informed as to current trends in the battery market. Additionally,

Read Case 1.9, "ZZZZ Best Company, Inc." in your text. Answer questions #1, 2, and 4 found at the end of the case.

Breach of Contract under “Internal Escalation Procedure for Dispute”- C-S has failed to follow the agreed upon dispute resolution process in regards to the delays and quality concerns. C-S has tentatively threatened to terminate the contract in light of product delays

As we are familiar with the case, we feel that two very important issues have not been addressed which in sufficient detail, given that in the may influence the profitability of the business venture. These are