LEB320F Meakin C 2013 Spring Week 7 Lecture 13 February 28 Outline of Last Lecture II Cybersquatting III Copyright IV Feist Publications v Rural Telephone V Infringement VI Benay v Warner Brothers VII Parody and Fair use not actionable VIII Suntrust v Houghlin Mifflin IX Trade Secret X ICM v DTI XI Federal Criminal Law protection Outline of Today s Lecture Chapter 10 11 XII Case Reviews Ch 10 11 XIII Patents A 5 elements of patentability XIV Lough v Brunswick boat propeller XV Infringement XVI Ownership XVII Contracts A Offer B Acceptance C Consideration D Bilateral E Unilateral F Express G Quasi H Formal v Informal I Executed v Executory XVIII Precision Concepts Corp v General Employment XIX Carroll v Lee XX Deskovick v Porzio XXI Valid XXII Void XXIII Voidable XXIV Unenforceable XXV Negotiated v Adhesion XXVI Form Contract XXVII Hartland Computer Leasing v The Insurance Man Case Reviews Chapter 10 These notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor s lecture GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes not as a substitute Precision Concepts Corp v General Employment Triad Personnel Services o General Employment an employment agency sent a potential employee to Precision for an interview Precision hired Ms Tan but refused to pay General Employment its fee Precision filed a complaint stating there wasn t a contractual relationship between Precision and General Employment GE filed answer and counterclaim which trial court approved Precision appealed but was affirmed Carroll v Lee o Judy Carroll lived with Paul Lee for 14 years The couple was never married and separated During their relationship they jointly acquired 3 parcels of land several automobiles a mobile home and other items of personal property After couple split Judy filed partition action claiming one half interest in the jointly titled property The properties being titled to both parties did not convey one half interest to Judy because Paul proved that the money used to purchase them came from the operation of his repair shop The rule in AZ is that when property is paid for by one party and title is taken in the name of that party and a second party who aren t husband and wife it s presumed the property was taken for the benefit of the one paying for the property It was necessary for Judy to prove they were co owners The trial court ruled in favor of Judy finding an implied contract existed and it was agreed she and Paul were co owners Reversed Judy petitioned the Supreme Court of AZ for further review Deskovick Et Al v Porzio o Peter Deskovick Sr was hospitalized for a year before his death During this time his son Michael Deskovick paid the hospital and medical bills under the impression that his father was financially unable to do so After his death it was discovered that his estate was adequate to cover all payments made by Michael Plaintiffs Michael and Peter Jr brought this action against executor of their father s estate Porzio to recover the amounts paid stating there was an implied contract between them and their father Judge found there was no intention to be repaid by the repayment so no implied contract had been formed On appeal plaintiffs contended the estate should be liable on the theory of quasi contract Judgment reversed and remanded Hartland Computer Leasing Corp v The Insurance Man Inc o Appeallant Hartland leases computers Hartland leased computer equipment to Insurance man on terms that Hartland made no warranties and lessee should look to vendor for any repairs but must continue payments regardless of condition of machine When problems arose with the equipment respondents stopped making payments When contacted they stated they didn t want the machine and Hogan should sell it and they would settle the difference Hartland sued under terms of the lease for the payments not made Trail judge ruled against Hartland but was reversed on grounds they sought relief from wrong party Chapter 11 Richards v Flowers Et Al o Mrs Richards plaintiff was interested in buying Flower s low if they could deal directly and not through a realtor Flowers agreed The plaintiff agreed to buy the lot via a telegram Flowers however entered into an agreement to sell the property to a third party Mr and Mrs Sutton After learning of Sutton Transaction Mrs Richards called Flowers to deliver his deed to her claiming the correspondence constituted a contract Flowers refused denying the letter constituted an offer to sell Trial judge ruled the letter constituted as an offer to sell but that the plaintiff s telegram was not a valid acceptance which was affirmed Leonard v Pepsico Inc o Plaintiff Leonard saw a TV commercial advertising a promotion that PepsiCo was sponsoring where you accumulate points by buying Pepsi products and exchange the points for Pepsi merchandise At the end of the ad a high school student was shown landing a jet with a subtitle indicating the cost of the jet was 7 million points Additional terms stated points could be purchased for ten cents each Plaintiff accumulated 700 000 enough to purchase 7 million points and sent a check demanding his jet Defendant refused Plaintiff filed suit for breach of contract Defendant moved for summary judgment In light of obvious absurdity of the commercial the court rejects plaintiff s argument that the commercial was not clearly in jest and defendant s motion for summary judgment is granted Newman v Schiff o Irwin Schiff has made a career and substantial profits from his tax protest activities He appeared on CBS News Nightwatch where he stated if anybody calls this show and cites any section of this code that says an individual is required to file a tax return I will pay them 100 000 After watching a rebroadcast Newman a St Louis lawyer called CBS Morning News and cited six sections of the Internal revenue code that state individuals are legally required to pay federal income taxes Schiff said Newman had not properly accepted the offer and wasn t entitled to the money Newman sued for breach of contract Court concluded Newman s response was untimely and no contract was formed Affirmed Lucier v Town of Norfolk o Lucier plaintiff operated a school bus for the defendant town In 1920 the plaintiff and defendant began negotiating a contract for the upcoming year Plaintiff was asked by School Committee to submit a bid covering transportation of students Plaintiff submitted his bid of 175 week The board passed a resolution awarding a contract for