You are on page 1of 6

Running head: LESSON 2 CASE STUDY

Lesson 2 Case Studies


Prasiddha Bhakta Shrestha
BUS 540: Business Law for Managers
Professor: Flavia LLOYD
July 11, 2015

LESSON 2 CASE STUDIES

2
Business Law Case Studies

Case 9.1: Facebook, Inc V.s Winklevoss


This case is related to Federal Court Case Contract. In this case, there is a issue that
whether the settlement agreement is enforceable or not. First time when Winklevoss twins file a
case against Facebook and Zuckerberg alleging that Zuckerberg had stolen their idea company
called ConnectU and created Facebook. As a result court ordered them to arbitrate their
dispute. In a process to arbitrate the dispute, Facebook agrees to pay $20 million in cash and $45
million of Facebook stock valued at $36 per share and had a contract that Winkeelevoss will
have no right to claim against Facebook. But later when Facebook became one of the successful
social networking sites, He again sues a file in charge of fraud against Facebook.
Case Review
Settlement Agreement Enforcement and Ethical Issue
Analyzing the case, when Facebook was found guilty of stoling ones idea of company
name ConnectU. Through arbitrators Facebook agrees to pay $20 million in cash and $45
million of Facebook stock valued at $36 as compensation. They granted all parties mutual
releases. Along with this they had also an agreement that Winkeelevoss and his team will have
no further right to assert against Facebook and have have no further claims against Facebook.
Court also stated that the agreement was done in front of half a dozen lawyers and bargaining
was done in freely equivalent position. So settle agreement is enforceable. Once the agreement is
enforced Winkeelevoss claim of fraud should not be decided. So it seems suing against
Facebook again by Winkeelevoss, Winkeelevoss seems acting unethical in this case.

LESSON 2 CASE STUDIES

3
Summary and Conclusion

Through the condition given in case, the case is emphasizing that, the court case cannot
be continued for long. Once the agreement is done between the conflicting parties through a
lawful process it must be enforced. So it states, at some point the court case must come to an end.

Case 10.1: Marder V.s Lopez


The case Marder V.s Lopez is between Marder and Paramount Pictures Corporation. In
this case Marder signed a contract with Paramount Picture Corporation in $2,300 for providing
information regarding her life for a screenplay. In signing a contract there was an agreement of
general release contract which stated Marder releases and discharge Paramount Picture
Corporation of and from each and every claim, demand, debt, liability, cost and expense of any
kind or character which has risen or are based on whole or in part on any matters occurring at
any time prior to date of this release. But when Paramount makes huge profits from the movie,
she files a case against Paramount Picture Corporation seeking a declaration as a right of Coauthor and co-owner. The district court as well as U.S. court of appeals dismissed her complaint.
Case Review
Ethical Dilemma:
In this case marder acted unethically because once she signed a contract with Paramount Picture
Corporation in mutual agreement to releases and discharge Paramount Picture Corporation of
and from each and every claim, demand, debt, liability, cost and expense of any kind or character
which has risen or are based on whole or in part on any matters occurring at any time prior to
date of this release. It become unethical to file a case seeking a declaration as a right of Coauthor and co-owner especially when its movie Flashdance grossed more than $150 million.

LESSON 2 CASE STUDIES

But analyzing this case from other part Paramount owes a ethical duty to pay her more
money, because Paramount movie was successful because of the screenplay that was made
through the information provided by her. This information was a true and based upon the life of
Maureen Marder, a night club dancer.
Summary and Conclusion
Once the contract is proved that it was done with free consent i.e. without fraud,
deception, misrepresentation, duress, or undue influence, The contract becomes enforceable. A
contract is a contract is a contract.

Ethics: Illegal Gambling Contract


This case is about R.D. Ryno V.s Tyra. The complexities arise when both parties entered
into illegal gambling contract. In this case, when Lee Tyra discussed purchasing a BMW M-1 for
$ 125,000 from Ryno, who ownes an automobile dealership in Fort Worth, he suggested a double
or nothing coin flip. In this agreement if Ryno wins Tyra had to pay $250,000 for the car but if
Tyra wins Ryno had to give it for free. In this gambling Tyra wins and as agreement Ryno gives
away the keys, title and possession. But later lawsuit arises as to ownership of car. But being the
illegal gambling contract, the court leaves the party where it found them.

LESSON 2 CASE STUDIES

5
Case Review:

Ethical Dilemma:
Analyzing the case, Ryno acted unethically in the case because if he had acted ethically
the situation of lawsuit as to ownership of car wont arise. While Tyra had acted ethically, she
won the coin flip and possessed the car. Thinking in side of court, the court should not have
helped Ryno to recover the BMW from Tyra because its him who suggested double or nothing
coin flip. Another reason is being this case as illegal gambling; the court cannot enforce either
party.
Summary and Conclusion
If there is case of illegal gambling or any illegal contract, the doctrine of illegality arises.
It states that the court reject to enforce the illegal contract and leave the parties where it finds
them.

LESSON 2 CASE STUDIES


Reference:
Cheeseman, H. (2014). Contemporary Business and Online Commerce Law. Prentice Hall,