Business

Case Portfolio Axia College University of Phoenix Case 1: Boulware vs. United States Government – 06-1509: March 3rd, 2008 Facts: Plaintiff, Michael Boulware is charged with criminal tax evasion and falsifying information on his income tax return documentation. He’s accused of moving funds from his corporation, HIE, where at that time he was founder, CEO and majority owner shareholder. Issues: Michael Boulware seeks to prove that his company loss money and therefore had no profits to show for the taxable year in question. And as a result, he received distributions that were used as capital gains to increase his shares in stocks, which are not taxable. Ruling: The court deemed Boulware’s evidence insufficient under the Miller Case. Boulware provided no substantial evidence that proved that the amounts which were diverted were intended be shown as a return of capital when filed. Analysis: A distribution of property made by a corporation as it pertains to stock should be considered as and treated as “dividend” and should be listed on the gross income statement of the filer. The part that is not considered dividend to a shareholder is either nontaxable return of capital or a taxable capital gain, and that depends on the type of stock the shareholder has. The Government’s motion to bar Boulware’s evidence was granted on the basis of the return capital theory. A diversion of funds in any criminal proceeding is considered a return of capital only if the taxpayer proves distributions are intended to be returns. Minority Rationale(s): This case rejected many attempts from the plaintiff to provide supported evidence due to his history in criminal proceedings. Comments: The ruling for this case blocks loopholes for previous tax offenders so that they are not able to continue cheating the system. Follow-up Questions 1) Hawaii 2) 2 years and eight months (from July 2005 until March 2008). 3) The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Ca. 4) The court system has courts that have their own jurisdiction which helps speed up the litigation process. Case 2 United States v James Daniel Good Real Property – 92-1180: December 13, 1993 Facts: Good was a resident of Hawaii who pled guilty to a prior drug charge. A few years after his trial, the United States proposed a rem action, in which they were seeking to confiscate his properties. The United States were seeking to seize Good’s properties on the terms that he used his property to make drug transactions. The Magistrate court organized an ex parte hearing in order to address this issue. Good was not required to attend this meeting. The meeting allowed the confiscation of his properties. Good appealed to the court to address this issue. Good seeks to show the court that the seizure of his property was illegal and did not offer him due process. Goodargued that an adversary meeting would have allowed him ample time to present evidence for his case. Issue: Should the Government be allowed to seize the properties of citizens without the proper documentation or due process' Doesn’t the 4th amendment of the constitution protect from illegal searches and seizure even if confronted by the government' Ruling: No, the government is not allowed to illegally seize properties without the proper documentation or notification to the parties. Only under extreme circumstance will the government be allowed to confiscate properties or goods without any notices. Analysis: The Fourth and Fifth Amendments protect the rights of citizens against unlawful searches and seizure, and provide due process in a court hearing. The Fourth Amendment protects against warrantless searches for evidence of criminal offenses. Whereas, here the government seeks ownership and control over the property; the Fifth Amendment’s clause applies for this scenario. The petitioner must be provided with proper documentation for a fair trial before the necessary actions can be imposed. Minority Rationale(s): The idea of protecting the properties of citizens against unlawful searches and seizures was concurred. The idea of providing information in criminal proceeding in order to provide due process is the dilemma. The offender may be able to dispose of evidence that may be essential in the proceeding, especially in drug cases. Comments: A proceeding involving the illegal sale and distribution of drugs can be completed with confiscating the properties of the offender. Follow Up Questions A copyright is the protection of original works by an author. A patent is used to protect these inventions or discoveries. A trademark is the protection of symbols, graphics, words or phrases implemented by the inventor. The title to real property is permanent because it is owned on the payment of a price and the person owning it may develop it or modify it to suit his purpose. Whereas the title to intellectual property is for a time to reward its inventor. Case 3 Moseley v. Secret Catalogue – 01-1013: March 4, 2003 Plaintiff: Victor and Cathy Moseley Defendant: Secret Catalogue, Inc Facts: Victor and Cathy Moseley decided to open a small store named “Victor’s Little Secret”. Their store sells novelty items, adult toys and other miscellaneous items. Correspondents of the Victoria’s Secret franchise heard of the existence of the store. They argued the Moseley’s store was a trademark infringement. In addition, they accused their store of being a dilution of their trademark as well. The Victoria’s Secret name is a popular trademark and much work had been done to properly market their company. The Federal Court had confirmed that a dilution of trademark had occurred. Issue: Should the court grant the judgment of trademark infringement when there is no evidence of the dilution or damages to the trademark' Ruling: No, The Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of completed harm before a party can be granted an injunction and damages for dilution of its trademark. Analysis: The Supreme Court clarified the District and Appeals court decision of copyright infringement. The Supreme Court recognized the District and Appeals misguided interpretation of the Trademark Infringement law which was amended in 1995. The two lower courts mistakenly identified the “tarnishing” affect as infringement or dilution towards the Victoria’s Secret Corporation. The amended Federal Trademark Dilution Act requires proof of complete harm towards a party. Minority Rationale(s): No dissenting or concurring opinions present, in part or in full. Comments: The tarnishing of a trademark does not constitute an infringement or a dilution of the trademark. Follow Up Questions One example, a person purchases land and decides to build a home on it. If he does not have a permanent title to the land he cannot build on it. Another example, if a person has ownership of some land and the state needs part of that land to build a public road, they have that right to take that part of the land that is needed, but they must compensate the owner. Similarities, when limiting the rights of properties is that you cannot use either type without the permission of the owner of the property. It is required to have the consent of the property owner even when borrowing an item. Difference when limiting the rights of properties is that you are allowed to “sample” intellectual properties. You are allowed to use passages for a text, with proper references. You cannot perform these actions on tangible items. Servitudes and easements are put into place by the county or state where the estate or property is bought or sold. Servitudes can be protected because it has certain limitations and requirements that the owner of the property can use it for. Easement can be protected because it allows another person or persons to enter land owned by someone else for a certain purpose. Servitudes and easements are important because it allows individuals to enter the property or estate for a particular or certain purpose. Case 4 Pfizer v. Superior Court of Los Angeles – B188106: March 2, 2010 Plaintiff: Pfizer Corporation Defendant: Superior Court of Los Angeles Facts: The Pfizer Company is the manufacture of the mouthwash product Listerine. They were petitioned in court because the advertisement stated Listerine could help replace flossing. Pfizer also advertised that Listerine could reduce gingivitis and plaque buildup. Pfizer if seeking discredit the ruling of the class action. Issue: The class action implemented in this case was all people who purchased the product Listerine in California. This group of people bought the product between June 2004 and January 2005. Ruling: A new class certification was granted. The previous class certification was extremely excessive in the previous trial. No presence of injury was proven nor were there any lost in wages. Analysis: A previous class action complaint, filed by Steve Galfano against Pfizer sparked this trial. Galfano accused Pfizer of being misleading with their marketing strategy. He stated his case represent all consumers from June 2004 to January 2005 in California concurred with his views or opinions. Galfano deemed the class certification ascertainable. Pfizer sought to disprove his claims and argued that a class action certification was unnecessary. Pfizer noted that the facts discussed by Galfano can only be discovered on anindividual basis. Minority Rationale(s): A class certification of this case was improper. Galfano was responsible for petitioning the court with an individual action, in order to seek compensation. Comments: The court erred when deciding the class certification on a basis that was to extreme for the circumstances. The previous “all people” clause was too general. Follow Up Questions Business speech involves the explanation of a product. It also allows an explanation of the person conducting the business, some of their accomplishments or honors and what some future goals may be for the business. This is established to protect the great good. A corporation should not be identified as an individual entity. Therefore, it is not protected by the constitution. I feel the business in this case was protected. The court was obligated to overturn the class certification because it was too general. If this did not take place, then the Fourth Amendment rights of the company would be violated. Case 5 Brzak v. United Nations – 08-2799: March 2, 2010 Plaintiff: Cynthia Brzak Defendant: United Nations Facts: Cynthia Brzak alleged that she was sexually discriminated against. She stated that the U.N. official should not be offered immunity for all the actions they committed. And, if they are granted immunity for such a case then it would be a violation of the constitution. Issue: Cynthia Brzak, a U.S citizen, who was employed by the United Nations to conduct activities in Switzerland for the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. Lubbers were allegedly charged with sexual discrimination against Brzak. It was proclaimed that Lubbers improperly touched Brzak in a meeting. Brzak went through the necessary steps to report the incident. She filed a complaint. The complaint called for discipline of Lubbers. Lubbers reported to Annan to review the complaint but wereexonerated. As a result of her filing the complaint she was denied promotions and there were problems with the work assignments as well. They were being altered. Ruling:The United States has extended immunity to all U.N. officials under the CPIUN. Officials of the U.N. are declared immune from every legal process. Analysis: Immunity has been offered since the existence of the United States. Immunity is established to protect the accused from being prosecuted in criminal proceedings. The United States has declared U.N. officials immune to international and domestic laws. Brzak failed to provide information on why the U.N. official should not receive immunity. Minority Rationale(s): Immunity should not be accessible in any and every case, although complete immunity has been offered in the past. Comments: A vivid line should be established to determine situationsthat require immunity. Follow Up Questions The United Nations is an international organization whose main objective is the achievement of world peace. The United Nations also incorporate international law, social progress, international security and human rights. The United Nations provide security for countries where hostility is present while promoting peace efforts. The United Nations have helped aid more than 80 countries to their independence. This agency does not report to any superior agency. Case 6 Wallace v. Microsoft Corporation - 09-3187: February 18, 2010 Plaintiff: Peter Wallace Defendant: Microsoft Corporation Facts: Peter Wallace was an employee of the Microsoft Corporation. One day while walking to a business meeting, Mr. Wallace tripped and fell. The Microsoft Corporation gave Mr. Wallace a leave of absence and he was inevitably terminated. Mr. Wallace has made a petition against Microsoft and has accused them of retaliator charge and breach of an employment contract. Issue: The Microsoft Corporation is arguing to dismiss the claims because they were unenforceable under the statute of limitations. Ruling: Wallace proved that Microsoft was served with a complaint and summons within 120 days of his day of removal. It was noted that the District Court erred when dismissing his previous tort claim. Analysis: Kansas law requires both the petitioner and the summons be served before the initial trial. Mr. Wallace had 90 days to make a petition and summons Microsoft elected to removed the case to federal court. This implied that the trial would begin in Federal Court. The trial was now being conducted under Federal Laws. This action by Microsoft saves his tort claim. Minority Rationale(s): Removing a case from one jurisdiction to another call for the re-opening of the case. Comments: Understanding the State’s Statue of Limitation may be essential when presenting a case before court. This denotes the amount of time available to file a petition. Follow Up Questions Business torts are usually economic and/or negligence torts. These includes fraud, breach of contract and embezzlement A warranty is the authorized use of a property. Types of warranties include products assured by the seller, a contract between the buyer and seller and a guarantee between the purchaser and company. Warranties were implemented to protect the consumer and retailer from defective products. These products may be protected by the manufacturer and extended by the consumer. Liability is imposed when the manufacturer sells a defective or very dangerous product. Yes, these notices on packages disclose all necessary information that the consumer needs to determine if the product is a hazard. Case 7: Thompson v. Lithia *Chrysler* Jeep & Dodge Plaintiff: Corey and Kimber Thompson Defendant: Lithia Chrysler, Jeep & Dodge Facts: Thompson wanted to purchase a pick-up truck from Lithia Dodge. The Thompson’s made a cash down payment of $2000 and offered to trade-in their vehicle. Their vehicle trade-in value was about twenty-two thousand. The initial retail contract stated that the interest rate of the vehicle would be 3.9 percent. This interest rate would be pending until the financing status was heard from by the bank. Lithia Dodge would be obligated to sell the vehicle once the bank approved financing. One week later, Lithia’s manager notified Thompson and told them the 3.9 interest rate had not been approved. If they wanted to purchase the vehicle, they would have to sign a contract with a 4.9 interest rate. Thompson refused and sued Lithia Dodge. *Issue: * IsLithia Chrysler obligated to commit to the interest rate if the contract had not been approved' Does Thompson have a valid argument although the contract was under arbitration' Ruling: No, Lithia Chrysler is not obligated to commit to the previous interest rate. As stated in the contract, interest rates were binding pending financing. The case was also invalid because the contract was compelled to arbitration. Analysis: Lithia Chrysler, Jeep & Dodge would not be forced to sell at that interest rate although Thompson already traded in their existing vehicle and placed a two-thousand dollar payment on the car. The contract that the Thompson was entering into was under arbitration. Under their contract agreement, if any parties decided to void the contract a court appearance would not be necessary. And if deemed necessary, a trial by jury would be the process. Minority Rationale(s): The contract arbitration enforces the rights of the person liable for the contract. Persons engaging in contracts should note distinct terms and guidelines. Comments: When entering into any contract agreement, understand all terms and conditions before making a decision. Follow Up Questions The interest that was being offered The plaintiff should have discretely read over the entire contract. The arbitration clause state on the reverse side of the contract. The plaintiff could have received compensatory damage are a result. Cases that are protected under the Statue of Fraud. These cases are primarily real estate contracts and monetary contracts that exceed a specific dollar amount.