Chapter 2.1, Problem I.1E

Film District, a newly-formed film studio and distributor worked out a deal with Netflix, Inc. to stream new movies over the Internet just a few months after they are released on DVDs. Under the terms of the agreement, new movies from Film District will be licensed exclusively to Netflix instead of appearing on premium cable channels. Industry observers believe this deal reflects the new realities of changing channels for movies from theaters, home videos, and cable pay TV to online streaming. Netflix also has a similar deal with Relativity Media, the movie company that financed the highly-acclaimed boxing movie, The Fighter. Given the rapid and dramatic changes occurring in film distribution channels, how might partnerships or alliances such as that between Netflix and Film District be helpful to either firm in managing their distribution channels?

Global Crossing   The company was founded in 1997 to provide a trans-Atlantic cable to carry telephone and data traffic. Using high-bandwidth optical fiber, the company was able to sell capacity at less than half the price of existing competitors. After six months of operations, Global Crossing offered stock to the public, and the resulting price valued the firm at an astounding $19 billion. Six months later it was valued at $38 billion, more than the Ford Motor Company.   The cable technology was not proprietary and data-carrying capacity was a commodity. That meant that customers could easily switch from one supplier to another, putting them in a   powerful bargaining position. Furthermore, customers were price-sensitive. Even worse, the threat of entry was high, and other companies were entering the business, fueled by easy financing. High fixed costs but near-zero marginal costs (the cost to carry one more piece of data) led to fierce price competition within the industry. As new…

Edison's Trust attempted to control theatrical distribution by A. Forcing theater owners to buy licenses to show films B. Forcing theater owners to buy projectors to show films C. Forcing theater owners to buy popcorn and other concessions to show films D. Forcing theater owners to set admission prices to show films

State whether the following agreements or contracts are void, voidable valid, and provide a reason for your answer. 1 ) Taylor, aged 17, gets married, and divorces two months later. After getting divorced, she enters into a contract with Michael for the sale of his house. ( 2 ) Jessica, aged 5, enters into a contract with John, aged 11, for the sale of his bicycle.    3 ) Nomsa, aged 16, runs a successful boutique with the consent of her parents, and enters into a contract relating to her business. 4 ) Amy, who is 17, has inherited an apartment in Cape Town from her deceased father. The apartment is valued at R2 million. With her mother’s assistance, Amy enters into an agreement to sell the apartment to her aunt.   5 ) Justin, who is mentally ill, concludes a contract for the sale of his laptop without his curator knowing. (2)

In January 2016 Ben Sisko bought a “Quark's Burgers” franchise in Montana. Quark's Burgers has over 100 franchisees, and its franchise agreement states that all franchisees must offer menu items as directed by Quark's Burgers, and that the failure to do so could result in the immediate termination of the franchise. Ben bought the franchise because he was a vegetarian, and its menu was free of meat products.  In addition, Ben's religion forbids the eating of any meat products.  Ben's franchise was very successful, and every year he received an award from Quark's Burgers for being one of the top 10% of its franchisees. In April 2019 Quark's Burgers changed its menu; among the changes included breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham, or sausage. Ben refused to sell these items at his store on the ground that his religion forbids the eating of pork products.   In January 2020 Ben opened a second franchise, at which he also refused to sell products with meat products. Ben's franchises…

Briefly explain the nature of the impact of State laws/statues and local ordinances on employer and employee relationships and interactions. Explain the following terms: “Pre-empting Action” and “Sovereign Immunity”.  Explain how and when the US CONGRESS can abrogate the State’s ‘Sovereign Immunity.’

You have a job bidding provision in the contract which says.   Vacancies in bargaining unit positions shall be posted for seven (7) days.  The posting period ended on April 21.  Employees may bid on positions one or two grades above the position held.  All bids filed with the posting period shall be considered.  If qualifications are relatively equal, the more senior bidder shall be granted the position, provided, however, that employees granted a position hereunder shall be ineligible to be granted a new position for one year from the date of promotion.  A test score of 70 is considered minimally qualified.  The position is in Grade4              The following have applied for the position               APPLICANT (A)     GRADE     DATE IN POSITION    TEST     SENIORITY DATE   BID DATE                            OR BIDDER (B)                                  1          B                      2                      4-1-21                 72                1999              4-23-22…

The McClungs owned Ollie’s Barbecue, a restaurant located a few blocks from the interstate highway in Birmingham, Alabama, with dining accommodations for whites only and a takeout service for blacks. In the year preceding the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the restaurant had purchased a substantial portion of the food it served from outside the state. The restaurant had refused to serve blacks since its original opening in 1927 and asserted that if it were required to serve blacks it would lose much of its business. The McClungs sought a declaratory judgment to render unconstitutional the application of the Civil Rights Act to their restaurant because their admitted racial discrimination did not restrict or significantly impede interstate commerce. Decision?

In 1923, DuPont was granted the exclusive right to make and sell cellophane in North America. In 1927, the company introduced a moisture-proof brand of cello- phane that was ideal for various wrapping needs. Although more expensive than most competing wrapping, it offered a desired combination of transparency, strength, and cost. Except for its permeability to gases, however, cellophane had no qualities that a number of competing materials did not possess as well. Cellophane sales increased dramatically, and by 1950, DuPont produced almost 75 percent of the cellophane sold in the United States. Nevertheless, sales of the material constituted less than 20 percent of the sales of “flexible packaging materials.” The United States brought an action, contending that by so dominating cellophane production, DuPont had monopolized a part of trade or commerce in violation of the Sherman Act. DuPont argued that it had not monopolized because it did not have the power to control the price of…