BUS 101-01 Final Qik

Card Set Information

Author:
HrWasp
ID:
85395
Filename:
BUS 101-01 Final Qik
Updated:
2011-05-12 04:24:44
Tags:
Final Exam Qik Info
Folders:

Description:
Qwik Tips
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview

The flashcards below were created by user HrWasp on FreezingBlue Flashcards. What would you like to do?


  1. 6 guidelines to evaluating ethics in a particular action
    LRVCHP
  2. 4 sources of American Law
    USRC
  3. Alternate Dispute Resolution
    NMA
  4. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 require
    To set up confidential systems so that employees & others can "raise red flags" about suspected illegal or unethical auditing & accounting practices.
  5. Can Hawk Corp stop Hawk.com's use of "hawk"? If so, what must they show?
    {Trademark Dilusion - unlikely to confuse.}

    Yes, trademark owners can bring a suit in federal court for trademark dilution. Trademark dilution laws protect "distinctive" or "famous" trademarks from certain unauthorized uses even when the use is on noncompeting goods or is unlikely to confuse.
  6. U.S v Skilling (Enron) Skilling's convition
    {2B-Overstated-Arraged deals-clear message...unethical practices}

    Skilling shifted 2 Billion dollars in losses from Enron's struggling divisions to Wholesale. He had overstated Enron's profits in calls to investors and in press releases. To hide more losses, he had arranged deals between Enron's executives & 3rd parties, which he falsely portrayed to Enron's accountants and to the Securities and Exchange Commission as producing income. Enron had to file bankruptcy. Skilling remains a symbol of corporate greed and decit. By upholding his fraud convitions, the federal appellate court sent a clear message to the corporate world that unethical business practices have serious consequences.
  7. KSR International Co v. Teleflex, Inc
    • {Issue-invaid..several pat. important aspecst adj-auto-pedal-elec-throd-ctrl..invention obvious}
    • {Decision-supreme yes}
    • {Reason-pat for comb wich only unites old elements w/no change to respective function--if tech has been used to improve 1 device, another person normal skill in art see and dups others same way-using tech obvious-unless its actual appl is beyond his skill.}
    • {Important-dramatically changed the standards, been ack as most sign pat decision, import ram on both..}

    • Issue: Was Teleflex's patent invalid because several existing patents already covered the important aspects of the adjustable automobile pedal with electronic throttle control, making its invention obvous?
    • Decision: Yes
    • Reason: Court pointed out that in many previous decision it had held "that a patent for a combination which only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions, if a technician has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognized that if would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his/her skill"
    • Important: 1 Dramitically changed the standards of obviousness that apply to patent laws. 2 This case has been acknowledge as the most significant patent decision in years. 3 Holdings has important ramifications on both current patents and patent applications.
  8. Miranda v. Arizona
    Has been cited the more court decisions than any other case in the history of American law.Miranda was arrested in his home for kidnapping & rape of an 18 yr old woman. He was taken to a police station and questioned by 2 officers. The officers emerged w/a written confession by Miranda.Miranda appeals his conviction, claiming that he had not been informed of his constitutional rights. He did not assert he was innocent of the crime or that his confession was false or made under duress. States he would have remained silent.Decision: Miranda case was subsequently consolidated with 3 other cases involving similar issues and reviewed by the United States Supreme Court. In its decision, the court stated that whenever an individual is taken into custody, "you have the right to remain silent, anything you say or do can and will be held against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak w/an attorney, if you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you. Do you understand these rights as I have read them to you?"
  9. United States v Inn Food
    • Issue: Does an importer's use of double-invoicing system constitue proof of an intent to defraud the government of import duties?
    • Decision: Yes The US Court of appeals of the federal circuit affirmed the lower courts judgement.
    • Reason: The evidence showed that the Inn Foods knowningly entered goods by means of a material false statement. Each grower sent Inn Foods a copy of an undervalued invoice. The company knew that these invoices were "grossly undervalued and false"-the growers set out the details of the specific undervaluation in correspondence to Inn Foods.
    • Why: Inn Foods learned of the invesigation, the company included a disclaimer on some shipments stating that the declared value "is strictly for customs clearance" while the company determines the "true transaction value".
  10. Jannusch v Naffziger
    • {Issue-were good dominate factor in sale}
    • {Decision-yes-contract been formed under UCC& Naff breached.}
    • {Reason-oral agreement for sale of biz was predominantly 1 for sale of goods & therefore under w/in Art2 of UCC. Oral agree was sufficiently definite form of sales contract.}
    • {Important-case ill important it is to anticipate factors that courts consider in determining whether Art 2 UCC applies.}

    • Issue: Were the goods the predominant factor in the sale of his business?
    • Decision: Yes, appeals court reversed the decision of the trail court, finding that a contract had been formed under the UCC & that the Naffzigers had breached it.
    • Reason: The oral agreement for the sale of the business was predominantly one for the sale of goods and therefore was within Article 2 of the UCC. The oral agreement was sufficiently definite to form a sales contract, even though it did not specify the price of each item being sold or distinguish between the value of the equipment and the value of the goodwill of the business.
    • Why: Case illustrates how important it is to anticipate the factors that courts consider in determining whether Article 2 of UCC applies.

What would you like to do?

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview