Business Law Binding Vs Persuasive Authority

Week 1 questions

FIDM

1.1, Binding vs Persuasive Authority-

Binding authority:It is the monitoring authority. The courts are bound to follow a particular source of law that is.considered to be a binding authority decision making. The types of law that are binding include, in order of authority are as below:

 1.U.S. Constitution.

2. State Constitution

3. U.S. Supreme Court cases

4. Federal Laws

5. State Laws

6. Absolute government regulations

7. Jurisdiction court decisions

The decision can be inferred with comparing binding vs. persuasive authority as shown below:The Illinois court doesn't obligate to follow the Iowa Supreme Court's decision on the issue: however. if the Iowa Court's decision was based on a case with the same specific issue it may have persuasive weight in the Illinois court. Additionally, the Illinois court may look to the Iowa decision for precedence if the issue is the same and the circumstances are reasonably similar to the ones in the case that they are considering. In order for Illinois to consider the precedence, the decision must not violate Illinois state constitution of statutes. Alternatively, other states may have addressed the issue and decided the matter differently. All of the stare decisions in case law that is available and significant to the issue may be considered in the court's determination

1.2, Remedies-

Common Law. It refers to the structure of rules or law developed from decisions of judicial or custom in courts of U.S and English, thus not attributed to a legislature.

1. Since, in this case AR is suing XS for breaking a contract therefore, AR becomes plaintiff and XS• becomes defendant.
2. AR wants XS to act on the contract as promised, and deliver the painting. Thus, performing the specific action or delivering the painting is the remedy to this particular dispute.
3. Courts can issue rescission order on a particular party and thus canceling the contract. The both parties of the contract return to the positions that they held previous before they enter into the agreement or contract. Thus an seek rescission of contract.
4. In this case, AR seeks remedy at equity as AR either wants S to draw the painting or cancel the• contract. As AR is not seeking the remedy in the form of money or property this is not the case of remedy at law.
5. There are two parties in a lawsuit. A person who starts the lawsuit is the plaintiff and the person against whom a lawsuit is filed is called defendant.In this case, if XS appeals against the decision of smaller court in the higher court, then XS ecome the appellant and the person who responds to the appeal is called appellee.

1.4, Spotlight on AOL-Common Law-

The doctrine of stare decisions refers to the court will follow the decisions taken over in the past. In the given case, the company A by mistake made public all the information of members and members cited for violation of Californian-a law. But the company A argued in the court on the basis of its forum selection clause which states that all the disputes should be filed in the court of Virginia

However. if the court applies the doctrine of stare decisions then the case would be dismissed. As California court has declared in several previous cases that A clause contravenes a strong public policy. Thus, on the basis of past verdict, the court can dismiss the claim of A.

1.7, Question of Ethics-Stare Decisions

1. One can easily judge that the man who ate up the boy should be hanged as murder can never be justified. One cannot claim for minimal punishment just because they were hungry and required sustenance for survival. No human has the right to judge the survival capability of other and this was an act of rarest cruelly and should be punished sternly.
2. No, the judges should follow the law as the law is always correct. The law has been created after careful and long study under several situations and hence this should not be ignored under any circumstances. The judges should not ignore the rule of the land and upheld the punishment for violating the human life.

5.2, Product Liability-

The court must give the decision in favor of the manufacturer defining that there was no malfunctioning with the gun and accomplished accurately that it was expected to accomplish.The court must appreciate the fact that Wright and Clark took the risk by using the guns without protecting the eves. Clark did not present any proof that the paintball gun utilized in the case was not successful to serve the purpose.

Clark was aware of the fact that the protective eve wears were available but he did not opt for buying it. He was an energetic member in paint balls shooting at different vehicles. Clark brought his gun on the evening of the incident for the purpose of shooting only.He was very well aware of the fact that shooting at someone's eve would be very very dangerous. But the utmost important testament was the statement given by Wright's that the gun did not malfunction.

5.3, Defenses to Product Liability-

Product Liability means that, if any property loss or physical harm is caused by the goods either sold or given on lease, then the seller or lessor will be liable for the damage or loss. Product liability is based on misrepresentation, negligence, and strict liability of tort theories.Defenses in product liability: Various numbers of defenses could be raised by the defendants such as. product misuse, comparative negligence, assumption of risk, or commonly known dangers.

Facts: Brandon Stroud purchased a golf car from Textron Inc. While driving the car he found that car didn't have lights and T didn't warned Brandon Stroud to drive on roads at night. Brandon Stroud was killed in an accident with Joseph Thornley's.vehicle. BS's estate filed a lawsuit against Textron Inc. for strict product liability and negligence.

Outcome: In the present case, the golf car sold by Textron Inc. didn't have a light, as per product liability it is the duty of the seller of the product to give adequate warnings about the product sold Since the car was without lights and plaintiff was aware about this fact. thus. it could be assumed.by the defendant that Brandon Stroud would be aware of this fact and will drive cautiously at night. Thus, the defendant may defend himself on the basis of assumption of risk assumed in the product.