The survivors of the Holocaust and the heirs of the Holocaust victims filed a case in the federal district court in the U.S. against various Hungarian entities alleging that they have expropriated property from the Hungarian Jews. The plaintiffs did not try to seek remedies from the Hungarian court nor they provided a legally compelling reason for not doing so. The defendants then asked the court to dismiss the court. To find: in the case that the request of the defendant is supported by the principle of comity.

Question

BUSINESS LAW 3 - David Ungar holds a Dunkin’ Donut's franchise. The terms of his franchise agreement require him to use only those ingredients furnished by Dunkin’ Donuts. He is also required to buy its napkins, cups, and so on, with the Dunkin’ Donut's trademark on them. Is this an illegal tying arrangement? What if Dunkin’ Donuts maintains that it needs these requirements to maintain its quality levels on a nationwide basis? [Ungar v. Dunkin’ Donuts of America, Inc., 429 U.S 5 - Hines Cosmetic Co. sold beauty preparations nationally to beauty shops at a standard or fixed- price schedule. Some of the shops were also supplied with a free demonstrator and free advertising materials. The shops that were not supplied with them claimed that giving the free services and materials constituted unlawful price discrimination. Hines replied that there was no price discrimination because it charged everyone the same. What it was giving free was merely a promotional campaign that was not…

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 11, Problem 7BCP

Summary Introduction

Case summary: The survivors of the Holocaust and the heirs of the Holocaust victims filed a case in the federal district court in the U.S. against various Hungarian entities alleging that they have expropriated property from the Hungarian Jews. The plaintiffs did not try to seek remedies from the Hungarian court nor they provided a legally compelling reason for not doing so. The defendants then asked the court to dismiss the court.

To find: in the case that the request of the defendant is supported by the principle of comity.

Expert Solution & Answer

Trending nowThis is a popular solution!

See solution

Check out sample textbook solution

Students have asked these similar questions

BUSINESS LAW 3 - David Ungar holds a Dunkin’ Donut's franchise. The terms of his franchise agreement require him to use only those ingredients furnished by Dunkin’ Donuts. He is also required to buy its napkins, cups, and so on, with the Dunkin’ Donut's trademark on them. Is this an illegal tying arrangement? What if Dunkin’ Donuts maintains that it needs these requirements to maintain its quality levels on a nationwide basis? [Ungar v. Dunkin’ Donuts of America, Inc., 429 U.S 5 - Hines Cosmetic Co. sold beauty preparations nationally to beauty shops at a standard or fixed- price schedule. Some of the shops were also supplied with a free demonstrator and free advertising materials. The shops that were not supplied with them claimed that giving the free services and materials constituted unlawful price discrimination. Hines replied that there was no price discrimination because it charged everyone the same. What it was giving free was merely a promotional campaign that was not…

Which exceptions public policy, implied contract, and implied covenant of good faith exceptions are recognize in the state of Arkansas?

Intel made large loyalty payments to HP in exchange for HP buying most of their chips from Intel instead of rival AMD. AMD sued Intel under the antitrust laws, and Intel settled the case by paying $1.25 billion to AMD What incentive conflict was being controlled by these loyalty payments? What advice did Intel ignore when they adopted this practice (consider how the Robinson-Patman Act applies to their practice) and speculate why Intel ignored the advice.