Business Law Case Studies U. S. v. Young 2003 ruling Selling and shipping tax free fuel meant for marine purposes is a crime and in addition selling it requires certificate 637. A young a marine retailer in Mexico Island obtained the certificate for the purpose of selling fuel. However, his dealings turned out to be non-marine dealings. He shipped his cash through Federal Express, which agreed to let IRS x-ray Young’s packages. These packages were suspected to carry huge sums of cash, and the IRS confirmed this after doing x-ray with the warrant. As a result, this landed Young in a trial where he tried to suppress the evidence arguing that the IRS did not originally obtain the warrant to x-ray the packages.
However, his motion convicted to trial following rejection of his motion. The defendant expected legitimate privacy basing on the fourth amendment of the Federal Express Packages, but the Federal Express airbill states that they may open and inspect the packages at their own option. This means that no individual expects to retain privacy if he/she signs the airbill as in the case of Young.
The IRS could not be allowed to x-ray the packages without warrant since it is beyond privacy and in case of any suspicions, the IRS should obtain a warrant before x-raying the packages (Kelly & Holmes, 2005). Young has the right to deny inspections from the IRS agent because there is no legal notice to search his private property. U.S. v. Young, 2005 ruling Young and McConnell presented untrue statements to clients and investors. After their business collapsed, they claimed to own 343, 000 heads of cattle, but they owned only 17, 000 cattle.
As a result, the investors lost about $147 million while the banks lost about $36 million and only $16 million was recovered. Their sentence was108 months and 87 months, which they regarded as harsh, but the court affirmed it. The sentence subjected to Young and McConnell is fair for the crimes committed. Conviction of multiple crimes is best since they committed both crimes. Be it mail fraud or any other crimes, so penalties should be passed according to the crimes committed (Kelly & Holmes, 2005, p. 244). Squish La Fish v.
Thomco Specialty Products Squish La Fish with his deal of distributing two million units of tuna squeeze relied on Thomco for good and sufficient services following a contract signed between them. Since Squish La Fish sought Thomco’s advice on the best adhesive, unfortunately, the adhesive did not wash off the tuna squeeze as stated by Thomco. This was realized after producing 8, 600 units of tuna squeeze. Due to this, the distributor cancelled the contract and Squish La Fish sued Thomco for negligent misrepresentation because of the false advice.
Squish La fish expected competence and reliability from Thomco of which he did not get. These values are defined by the restatement of torts (522). With these defaults, the court failed to acknowledge the crimes that bring out the misrepresentation statement. It can be said that Thomco had direct intentions of misleading Squish La Fish about the adhesive since he is an expert in such, so no error is expected from him. Additionally, it cannot be a defensive statement for Thomco to say that Squish La Fish could have tested the Adhesive before production since he is an expert, and Squish La Fish knew that he was provided with the right information (Kelly & Holmes, 2005).
Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad According to this case, there is no level of negligence in it since the train assistants were trying to hell out the man boarding the moving train. The case by which a man was trying to catch a train with a package in his hand could have been better if Palsgraf sued the Long Island Railroad for not stopping for the man.
The money had a package, which contained explosive materials, and in the midst of boarding the train assisted by the two assistants, the package fell, trampled on by the train, and injured Palsgraf’s head. The idea of Palsgraf suing the Long Island Railroad on negligence does not apply and that is why the court needed to rule out the case, which it did not. This forced the Long Island Railroad to appeal in the New York High Court. However, negligence could not be established since it was a matter of helping a man, and the assistants were not aware of the contents of the package.
There was no proximate cause in this situation since there is no level of negligence and the crime committed for does not apply in the case (Kelly & Holmes, 2005). Lightle v. Real Estate Commission On this case, Lightle seems to deceive the buyer since his contract with Williamses was already sealed, and the Williamses had already acquired the house. On the second deal where Seeley wanted the house, Williamses confirmed that the house was available.
This was a simple deal, but Lightle made it difficult by writing that the contract was like a backup if only the Williamses did not get the finances. This was a crime and Lightle had to pay for this crime that is why the court seized his real estate license and levied penalties on Lightle. The statement by the court that Lightle did not give actual information on the contract basis confirms that Lightle had plans to deceive the client. Lightle had obligations with the buyer since he was the agent in contact with the buyer, Seeley (Kelly & Holmes, 2005, p. 241). MacPherson v.
Buick Motor Company If the car were sold to a dealer and then sold to MacPherson, then the person to be held responsible for the damages is Buick motor company. However, in this case, since the tires were made by another company and not Buick, this other company would be held responsible. The court’s ruling that found Buick Motor Company liable for the damages should have based, not on the tyres, but on the fact that Buick Motor Company did not test the tyres before selling the car.
With such case in mind, the producer should be accountable for the damages at hand since Buick Motor Company did not test the tyres before buying. Yeah 1/60, 000 should be enough to confirm negligence to test the tyres on the ground that it has bought so many tyres from the company (Kelly & Holmes, 2005, p. 334). Powell v. Washburn Using the recreational vehicles as residences is an act that was passed by the county yet the CC&Rs did not permit such statements.
Powell sued Washburn for not permitting the recreational vehicles to be used as residences. This is because, the county passed the act to allow using the recreational vehicles as residences, but Washburn did not permit this. The court held the RVs violated the covenants, but these RVs were passed by the county and not Washburn. This is the only reason why the county rules changed, but not the covenants’. If the majority recommended the RVs then this will influence the decision to be made (Kelly & Holmes, 2005, p. 344). References Kelly, D., & Holmes, A.
E. (2005). Business law (5th ed. ). London: Cavendish