Cross 9e TBB Ch27

This paper will address the Roper v. Simmons 543 U.S551 (2005); it will specifically address the arrest, trial and the legal issues that arose. It will explain and identify the holdings of the lower courts and it will explain and identify the decision of the U.S Supreme Court.

Two issues are present in the case. The first is a decision on what research should be conducted by Manson and Associates to allow Larry Brownlow to estimate the feasibility of a Coors beer distributorship for a two-county area in Delaware. This issue is evident, even stressed, throughout the case. The second issue is a decision on whether or not the distributorship is feasible or, in other words, a go/no-go decision by Brownlow regarding his application. This issue is largely implicit in the case.

The Georgia Shopkeeper’s Defense statute bars the Plaintiff’s suit. The statute bars recovery for false imprisonment by merchants or their agents when all of its elements are met. The Shopkeeper’s Defense statute provides in order to preclude recover the following three elements must be present: (1) reasonable suspicion of shoplifting, (2) reasonable time of detention, and (3) reasonable manner of detention. Ga. Code Ann. § 51-7-60 (2015). The Plaintiff and Defendant have agreed that the Plaintiff’s behavior on September 29, 2015, was sufficient to cause a reasonable person to suspect her of shoplifting, and that the length of the Plaintiff’s detention was reasonable. Therefore, the only element in dispute is the reasonableness of the manner in which the Plaintiff was detained. As such, R-Mart should be protected under the statute and the Plaintiff could only recover for false imprisonment if the facts alleged in the complaint demonstrates the manner was unreasonable.

There are different types of businesses, for example, some use monopolies, trust and pools, while other eliminate competition for higher prices. As stated in “Progressive reformers regarded regulation as a cure for all sorts of socioeconomic and political problems” , “The Sherman Act of 1890 attempted to outlaw the restriction of competition by large companies that co-operated with rivals to fix outputs, prices, and market shares, initially through pools and later through trusts” , meaning, competition is the

Case Review: Davis Supermarkets, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board 2 F.3d 1162 (DC. Cir. 1993)

Antitrust law in the United States is a collection of federal and state government laws regulating the conduct and organization of business corporations with the intent to promote fair competition in an open-market economy for the benefit of the public. Congress passed the first antitrust statute, the Sherman Antitrust Act, in 1890 in response to the public outrage toward big business. In 1914, Congress passed two additional antitrust laws: the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Clayton Act. (The Antitrust Laws. Web.)

Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”

1. State A has sanctioned a law that says "no resident may offer blue soda pop anyplace in the state". The national government, notwithstanding, has built up the "No-Blue Sales Violation Act", preventing deeds that oppress the color shade of product sold. A nearby food seller who offers blue soda pop in vending machines is accused of damaging the state law. The food seller may challenge the state law on the premise that it is acquired by government law, and subsequently

Mad-About-Milk case illustrates challenges to interpretation of The Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause grants the federal government power to regulate commerce between states. In this case the issue is whether California’s milk regulations pose a restriction on interstate trade. In this case California is not violating the Commerce Clause because its milk regulation applies equally to companies within the state and with plants outside the state. The requirement for fortified milk sold within the state is not isolated and applies uniformly for any company

There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that Barnes did understand the label to constitute a representation in the form suggested. It was found that Glendale was negligent and in all circumstances, it was considered there was a duty on Glendale to include in the packaging a warning as to the consequences of using corrosive product with hot water in a confined space such as a drain. There was no specific defect with the caustic soda but the issue is whether it was defective within the meaning of Section 75AC. It was found by the court the label to be defective within the meaning of section 75AC.

A problematic stance, in the area of Walmarts REIT tax situation, and tax evasion techniques. The

Thus, the following remedies are proposed to deal with the situation. First, MSL and Macy’s must come together in the presence of their legal experts to mend their differences. Although, it is not clear from the cases whether MSL decided to breach the case out of ignorance or out of gluttony, it is nonetheless critical that both parties hold a joint session. Mending strings will enable both parties to sit down and review the scope of their contracts. It appears from Macke (n. pag.) that Macy’s does not seem to let bygones be bygones, which shows that MSL and Macy’s need to sit down and urgently resolve their differences.

Target is still unwilling to entertain settlement discussions to resolve this claim, and we are not in a position to recommend tender acceptance due to allegations of independent negligence for premises liability. Therefore, I recommend that we assign defense counsel to pursue dismissal of The Coca-Cola Company and enter a timely appearance.

First and most important, since the majority of customers are neither full-price customers nor discount customers, more and more customer will become discount customer because nobody wants to pay the full price on a product when they can buy the exact same product with less money. The enlarging of the discount customer group can quickly cause negative revenue for Liza Davis since the company is losing money on the on sale merchandises. Second, according to the case, we know “one in tem sales resulted in a return, and one in four returns resulted in merchandise having to be destroyed because of original or customer damage” and “sales people spent 20 minutes with customers who purchased item, two minutes with customer who did not purchase items, and 15 minutes processing a return”. When the majority of defect merchandise are on sale merchandise, and the return process are taking almost as much time of sales people as the time that they’re spending on serving a customer that actually made a purchase, discount customers are becoming a liability to the company instead of an

In 2001 to 2008, sales of natural gas from KKKS have never been done in an open tender, natural gas can be sold directly to natural gas distribution companies without any tender, in other words, KKKS never announced to the media (newspapers, websites etc.) regarding the potential for natural gas that will be commercialized. Hence, Natural Gas Distribution companies who have network to KKKS will benefit from this kind of process. The process of selling gas without open tender as mentioned above can lead to unethical business behavior, because KKKS is the only one who gained full authorization from BPMIGAS to control the commercialization process but KKKS did not doing a transparent business process.