Which of the following would the courts most likely not consider to be illegal?
a. An unfair contract between Carl consumer and Big Corporaton.
b. Big Corp., in Denver hires Debbie, an attotney. The employment contract states that if Debbie leaved Big, she cannot practice as an an attorney for a year within 1,000 miles of Denver.
c. Kramer moves his grocery store to a new, bigger building. Kramer sells his old building to Hamilton. The contract states that Hamilton or any other owner of the building cannot open a grocery store there for five years.
d. Hair Dye Co., sells hair dye to retail stores and beauty salons. The labels on the containers of hair dye state that if anyone is injured by the product, the damages will be a refund of the purchase price of the hair dye. Sally is severely burned on her scalp by a Hair Dye product.
2007-04-24 07:55:46 · 9 answers · asked by glock310 3 in Business & Finance ➔ Small Business
A
2007-04-24 08:00:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
a. This is a question of bargaining power. Contract is legal, but the corp will have the greater burden of proof in breach.
b. This is an unenforceable contract. Non-competition clause would only work if Big Corp were a law firm, and taking away a license to practice is beyond their authority. (As an attorney, Debbie cannot play "dumb", she would know this before signing.)
c. This is a normal non-competition clause. No problem.
d. Label is irrelevant. Product liability may carry a bigger penalty for the company if the product is used normally by the consumer. Since hair dye is intended for putting on the scalp, the consumer first has a burden to prove they used the product as any "reasonable person" would have when following instructions. The burden then falls to the company to prove otherwise.
2007-04-24 08:05:50 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
people who're benefitting from the early stable provisions of Obamacare do not choose to pay attention why the full equipment is undesirable. And, from 2 of your solutions so a procedures, they even have short interest spans.
2016-11-27 01:41:12 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
d. Hair Dye Co.
The label is not illegal just not enforcible. The others somehow restrict freedoms = illegal. That's my take anyway.
2007-04-24 08:02:18 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
C. The law cannot compel a property owner to set his competition up in business.
2007-04-24 08:07:15 · answer #5 · answered by regerugged 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Double negative in the question makes c correct .
2007-04-24 08:07:34 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
None of these are illegal. They are all unethical but none illegal. They are not punishable as criminal offenses.
2007-04-24 08:10:33 · answer #7 · answered by jeffwilliams1979 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
B it's a no compete agreement.
2007-04-24 08:01:30 · answer #8 · answered by csucdartgirl 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
c
2007-04-24 08:00:23 · answer #9 · answered by jazboat007 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋