Business Law Exam 1 Cases + Questions
Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital Foundation - Correct Answer Facts: Bickford and his wife agreed
to pay their respective debts (accumulated before August, 18, 1998). Later, Bickford's wife sought
medical care for her own daughter (who was unrelated to Bickford) at a North Carolina hospital called
Onslow Memorial Hospital, for which the hospital held Bickford financially accountable. After Bickford
failed to pay due to the hospital not informing him of his outstanding debt, the hospital held him
responsible for the outstanding payment and informed creditors as such. Bickford requested that the
hospital to correct their statement, and because they refused, Bickford was unable to acquire a
mortgage due to his "outstanding" debts. Bickford filed suit against the hospital based on the
aforementioned facts.
Issue: While Bickford claimed he was wronged by the hospital in a Maine state court, Onslaw Memorial
Hospital Foundation, Inc., claimed that the suit was invalid based on a lack of personal jurisdiction on
the part of the Maine state court on the grounds that they had no business outside of North Carolina
and doesn't serve an Maine residents. The main issue presented is whether a Maine court has
jurisdiction over the case.
Rule: For jurisdiction to be applicable, the court must have an interest in the litigation, the defendant
could have anticipated litigation in Maine, and the jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial
justice.
Analysis: Because the appellant is a Maine resident and is the victim of a false credit report based on a
wrongful debt accrued in another state, Maine has an interest in correcting this mistake and allowing
the appellant to seek an equitable outcome. The defendant also could have anticipated litigation in
Maine based on the fact that it was notified of an erroneous debt it reported on behalf of a Maine
resident and later refused to corr
Marya Callais, a citizen of Florida, was walking along a busy street in Tallahassee, Florida, when a large
crate flew off a passing truck and hit her, causing numerous injuries. She experienced a great deal of
pain and suffering, incurred significant medical expenses, and could not work for six months. She wants
to sue the trucking firm for $300,000 in damages. The firm's headquarters are in Georgia, although the
company does business in Florida. In what court might Callais bring suit—a Florida state court, a Georgia
state court, or a federal court? What factors might influence her decision? - Correct Answer Callais'
primary concern would be the precedents and more specifically in which court she has the best chance
of winning her case and which court she could theoretically win the most money. Perhaps federal courts
award more money than the state courts in these types of incidents, but I am unfamiliar with this
process so I am unsure. Additionally, she should consider the venue. It is probably that it would be
easier for her to get back and forth from a court in Florida rather than a federal or Georgia state court.
Unless federal courts have a history of rewarding substantially more money for this type of suit than
,state courts, in all likelihood it makes the most sense for her to bring her suit to a Florida state court and
call the company to Florida.
Prime-Energy / PRM Energy Systems Case - Correct Answer Will the dispute go to court or to
arbitration?
Because PRM Energy Systems and Primenergy signed contracts stating that "all disputes" would be
settled by arbitration, and Primenergy broke the licensing agreement regarding PRM's patents,
arbitration would most likely occur. Outside of the contract, alternative dispute resolutions offer a
number of advantages over court proceedings when two (or more) large corporations are involved, the
most important being the flexibility of ADRs. Pursuing arbitration is a much quicker and more private
process. Furthermore, it oftentimes enables companies to continue to do business with one another
after the dispute is settled due to the non-antagonistic proceedings that occur.
Case 3.1: Espresso Disposition Corp. 1 v. Santana Sales & Marketing Group, Inc. - Correct Answer Facts: A
trial court order denied Espresso Disposition Corporation 1 and Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss Santana Sales & Marketing Group, Inc.'s complaint regarding a contract which the
corporations entered. The contract states that any action pertaining to the contract must be conducted
in the state of Illinois. The appellee suggests that this venue provision was a mistake and that the venue
was supposed to be in Florida.
Issue: The issue is whether the agreement provides for a mandatory forum selection clause that is
enforceable under Florida law.
Rule: Under Florida law, forum selection clauses in contracts are valid. Therefore, in order to overturn or
seek a legal right to ignore the clause, it must be established that the clause or the enforcement of the
clause is not fair or reasonable based on specific, not hypothetical circumstances. This can only occur if
the signee of the contract (and thus the one who agrees to the location of the forum) can prove that the
enforcement of such a clause would make forums or actions impossible.
Analysis: Because Illinois state courts exist, and the state has established a myriad of state trial and
appellate courts, the claim that enforcing a clause requiring action to be taken in the State of Illinois
would making forums impossible is not factual. Furthermore, the appellants claim that action taken in
Florida violates the action clause that was placed in their contract to ensure trials only take place in
Illinois.
, Conclusion: court ruled in favor of the dismissal of the case based on the forum clause in the contract
being legally binding. Furthermore, the court rejected the movement to replace the clause citing the
necessity of carefully reading and editing a contract prior to agreeing to it.
Chapter 3 Problem 1: Rockford Peaches, a privately held company, sues Dottie Hinson for breach of
contract for quitting the team on the eve of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League
(AAGPBL) World Series. Among Hinson's defenses is the assertion that Rockford is financially insolvent
and would not be able pay Hinson her salary during the World Series or a bonus in the event of a victory.
During discovery, Hinson's attorneys seek detailed financial records from Rockford. Rockford's attorneys
claim the records are confidential and public disclosure would damage Rockford. You are the judge in
the case. How would you handle Hinson's request for these documents? - Correct Answer Because as a
judge I have the reasonable right of discovery to anything that is relevant to the claim or the defense of
any party, and I am thus able to inquire about a company's financial records even if said records are
confidential, I can request that the Rockford Peaches Baseball Club, Inc., provides me with the records.
With this in mind, I would request that the club provide me with the confidential financial records. That
being said, I would not necessarily make these records public and would first request that they be
delivered to me in a sealed envelope. I would then retire to my office, come through the records and
select the relevant information and redact the information that was not relevant to the case (thus
protecting the company's confidentiality to an extent).
Dottie Hinson sues the Rockford Peaches Baseball Club, Inc., a member of the All-American Girls
Professional Baseball League (AAGPBL), for breach of contract for failure to pay Hinson while she was
injured. Hinson wins. After the trial, a juror tells one of Rockford's attorneys that during jury
deliberations a fellow juror made a series of extremely anti-Semitic statements about one of Rockford's
witnesses, Rockford's corporate secretary who is married to the owner, culminating in this remark: "She
was such a cheap Jew that she did not want to pay."* Another juror confirmed the remarks. Rockford
filed a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. You are the judge. How would your rule? (Hint:
see Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. 2010).) - Correct Answer Most likely,
because at least one member of the jury displayed hostility and antisemitism towards a witness and
spoke poorly of the owners' wife (who was most likely partly a defendant in the trial), I would accept
Rockford's motion for a new trial. According to the reading, after looking at all the evidence, the judge
will grant the motion for a new trial only if she or he believes that the jury was in error and that it is not
appropriate to grant judgment for the other side. While the facts of the case may have been accurate,
because a jury decided the case, I would be unable to sign off on it with good faith with these types of
comments on record.
Case 4.1 'Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States' - Correct Answer Facts:
In the post-Civil Rights Act of 1964 America, the owner of a Georgia motel called "the Heart of Atlanta
Motel," violated the Civil Rights Act by refusing to rent rooms to African Americans (a form of
Bickford v. Onslow Memorial Hospital Foundation - Correct Answer Facts: Bickford and his wife agreed
to pay their respective debts (accumulated before August, 18, 1998). Later, Bickford's wife sought
medical care for her own daughter (who was unrelated to Bickford) at a North Carolina hospital called
Onslow Memorial Hospital, for which the hospital held Bickford financially accountable. After Bickford
failed to pay due to the hospital not informing him of his outstanding debt, the hospital held him
responsible for the outstanding payment and informed creditors as such. Bickford requested that the
hospital to correct their statement, and because they refused, Bickford was unable to acquire a
mortgage due to his "outstanding" debts. Bickford filed suit against the hospital based on the
aforementioned facts.
Issue: While Bickford claimed he was wronged by the hospital in a Maine state court, Onslaw Memorial
Hospital Foundation, Inc., claimed that the suit was invalid based on a lack of personal jurisdiction on
the part of the Maine state court on the grounds that they had no business outside of North Carolina
and doesn't serve an Maine residents. The main issue presented is whether a Maine court has
jurisdiction over the case.
Rule: For jurisdiction to be applicable, the court must have an interest in the litigation, the defendant
could have anticipated litigation in Maine, and the jurisdiction is consistent with fair play and substantial
justice.
Analysis: Because the appellant is a Maine resident and is the victim of a false credit report based on a
wrongful debt accrued in another state, Maine has an interest in correcting this mistake and allowing
the appellant to seek an equitable outcome. The defendant also could have anticipated litigation in
Maine based on the fact that it was notified of an erroneous debt it reported on behalf of a Maine
resident and later refused to corr
Marya Callais, a citizen of Florida, was walking along a busy street in Tallahassee, Florida, when a large
crate flew off a passing truck and hit her, causing numerous injuries. She experienced a great deal of
pain and suffering, incurred significant medical expenses, and could not work for six months. She wants
to sue the trucking firm for $300,000 in damages. The firm's headquarters are in Georgia, although the
company does business in Florida. In what court might Callais bring suit—a Florida state court, a Georgia
state court, or a federal court? What factors might influence her decision? - Correct Answer Callais'
primary concern would be the precedents and more specifically in which court she has the best chance
of winning her case and which court she could theoretically win the most money. Perhaps federal courts
award more money than the state courts in these types of incidents, but I am unfamiliar with this
process so I am unsure. Additionally, she should consider the venue. It is probably that it would be
easier for her to get back and forth from a court in Florida rather than a federal or Georgia state court.
Unless federal courts have a history of rewarding substantially more money for this type of suit than
,state courts, in all likelihood it makes the most sense for her to bring her suit to a Florida state court and
call the company to Florida.
Prime-Energy / PRM Energy Systems Case - Correct Answer Will the dispute go to court or to
arbitration?
Because PRM Energy Systems and Primenergy signed contracts stating that "all disputes" would be
settled by arbitration, and Primenergy broke the licensing agreement regarding PRM's patents,
arbitration would most likely occur. Outside of the contract, alternative dispute resolutions offer a
number of advantages over court proceedings when two (or more) large corporations are involved, the
most important being the flexibility of ADRs. Pursuing arbitration is a much quicker and more private
process. Furthermore, it oftentimes enables companies to continue to do business with one another
after the dispute is settled due to the non-antagonistic proceedings that occur.
Case 3.1: Espresso Disposition Corp. 1 v. Santana Sales & Marketing Group, Inc. - Correct Answer Facts: A
trial court order denied Espresso Disposition Corporation 1 and Rowland Coffee Roasters, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss Santana Sales & Marketing Group, Inc.'s complaint regarding a contract which the
corporations entered. The contract states that any action pertaining to the contract must be conducted
in the state of Illinois. The appellee suggests that this venue provision was a mistake and that the venue
was supposed to be in Florida.
Issue: The issue is whether the agreement provides for a mandatory forum selection clause that is
enforceable under Florida law.
Rule: Under Florida law, forum selection clauses in contracts are valid. Therefore, in order to overturn or
seek a legal right to ignore the clause, it must be established that the clause or the enforcement of the
clause is not fair or reasonable based on specific, not hypothetical circumstances. This can only occur if
the signee of the contract (and thus the one who agrees to the location of the forum) can prove that the
enforcement of such a clause would make forums or actions impossible.
Analysis: Because Illinois state courts exist, and the state has established a myriad of state trial and
appellate courts, the claim that enforcing a clause requiring action to be taken in the State of Illinois
would making forums impossible is not factual. Furthermore, the appellants claim that action taken in
Florida violates the action clause that was placed in their contract to ensure trials only take place in
Illinois.
, Conclusion: court ruled in favor of the dismissal of the case based on the forum clause in the contract
being legally binding. Furthermore, the court rejected the movement to replace the clause citing the
necessity of carefully reading and editing a contract prior to agreeing to it.
Chapter 3 Problem 1: Rockford Peaches, a privately held company, sues Dottie Hinson for breach of
contract for quitting the team on the eve of the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League
(AAGPBL) World Series. Among Hinson's defenses is the assertion that Rockford is financially insolvent
and would not be able pay Hinson her salary during the World Series or a bonus in the event of a victory.
During discovery, Hinson's attorneys seek detailed financial records from Rockford. Rockford's attorneys
claim the records are confidential and public disclosure would damage Rockford. You are the judge in
the case. How would you handle Hinson's request for these documents? - Correct Answer Because as a
judge I have the reasonable right of discovery to anything that is relevant to the claim or the defense of
any party, and I am thus able to inquire about a company's financial records even if said records are
confidential, I can request that the Rockford Peaches Baseball Club, Inc., provides me with the records.
With this in mind, I would request that the club provide me with the confidential financial records. That
being said, I would not necessarily make these records public and would first request that they be
delivered to me in a sealed envelope. I would then retire to my office, come through the records and
select the relevant information and redact the information that was not relevant to the case (thus
protecting the company's confidentiality to an extent).
Dottie Hinson sues the Rockford Peaches Baseball Club, Inc., a member of the All-American Girls
Professional Baseball League (AAGPBL), for breach of contract for failure to pay Hinson while she was
injured. Hinson wins. After the trial, a juror tells one of Rockford's attorneys that during jury
deliberations a fellow juror made a series of extremely anti-Semitic statements about one of Rockford's
witnesses, Rockford's corporate secretary who is married to the owner, culminating in this remark: "She
was such a cheap Jew that she did not want to pay."* Another juror confirmed the remarks. Rockford
filed a motion for a new trial based on juror misconduct. You are the judge. How would your rule? (Hint:
see Fleshner v. Pepose Vision Institute, 304 S.W.3d 81 (Mo. 2010).) - Correct Answer Most likely,
because at least one member of the jury displayed hostility and antisemitism towards a witness and
spoke poorly of the owners' wife (who was most likely partly a defendant in the trial), I would accept
Rockford's motion for a new trial. According to the reading, after looking at all the evidence, the judge
will grant the motion for a new trial only if she or he believes that the jury was in error and that it is not
appropriate to grant judgment for the other side. While the facts of the case may have been accurate,
because a jury decided the case, I would be unable to sign off on it with good faith with these types of
comments on record.
Case 4.1 'Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States' - Correct Answer Facts:
In the post-Civil Rights Act of 1964 America, the owner of a Georgia motel called "the Heart of Atlanta
Motel," violated the Civil Rights Act by refusing to rent rooms to African Americans (a form of
