The doctrine of latches called. It would like you to recognize that it exists, and is actually still "pounding on the law AND the facts." Given the success of the iPod (open and notorious) use -- even if Creative *had* a valid claim, Apple has a very strong latches defense. Unless there was interim tolling behind the scenes, this is a bit of a no brainer.
That's because the OP is an idiot. High fructose corn syrup has a high glycemic index. Fruit (as a result of the fiber and water) has a much lower glycemic index than a soda. It's a concentration balancing act.
High fructose corn syrup and fructose are world apart.
When you get fructose from fruit, you're also getting the fiber along with it, and a ton of water....when it comes from HFCS, with a mix of glucose thrown in, it's a whole new ballgame....
Somewhere, Richard Posner just had an orgasm.
The only reason this is the case is because the norm in America is the remedy of the courts of law -- damages. If the default remedy in contracts were the specific performance awarded by the courts of equity, equitable breach wouldn't exist.
Equitable breach is also usually a straw man; in your scenario, B will most likely have to haul A into court in order to get the 2$ per widget in expectation damages that A owes. (A may actually owe B more than 10k because of reliance damages if the widgets are custom, etc.) Since under the American rule each side pays own attorney's fees, B ends up getting the shaft. Of course, without an Iron-Clad integration clause, someone cites Pacific Gas and every conference call and email gets tossed into the mix under the parole evidence rule and the case goes to hell in a handbasket as A attempts to invalidate the contract due to no "meeting of the minds."
Seriously, if you're attempting to win the John Olin award by posting on slashdot, it's not gonna happen.
You referenced in a way that perpetuates an urban myth that portrays the legal system in a heinously incorrect light.
now go back to your cubicle, you sweaty long haired mongrel
Please check my post below. The facts in the "coffee case" have nothing to do with what you learned from the media. Try to be informed instead of looking like someone that has bought into the public hysteria.
Actually, please don't make things up.
I hate when people with no clue discuss Liebeck v McDonalds.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700
claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims
involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This
history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of
this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants
advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to
maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the
safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell
coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is
generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company
actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185
degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn
hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above,
and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured
into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn
the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns
would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing
the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
Plaintiffs' expert, a scholar in thermodynamics applied to human skin
burns, testified that liquids, at 180 degrees, will cause a full
thickness burn to human skin in two to seven seconds. Other testimony
showed that as the temperature decreases toward 155 degrees, the extent
of the burn relative to that temperature decreases exponentially. Thus,
if Liebeck's spill had involved coffee at 155 degrees, the liquid would
have cooled and given her time to avoid a serious burn.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or
home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research
showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while
driving.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount
was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at
fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in
punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee
sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the
local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 --
or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called
McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never
been revealed to the public, despite the fact that this was a public
case, litigated in public and subjected to extensive media reporting.
She didn't "lose on appeal" -- please shut the hell up.
The Lochner era called. It wants its rhetoric back. [I am not expressing agreement or disagreement with your substantial argument. Your rhetoric, however, has been abandoned half a century ago.]
An agreement that he shall keep no waterfowl: only a court of equity can force him to slaughter it. In today's common jurisprudence, contract damages are the norm, NOT specific performance. If you'd like, we can discuss the difference between the courts of law and equity. In general, there has been something of a triumph of the courts of equity in the US, but only in VERY specific areas. Contract law is very much still limited to courts of law. [Although there is no longer a distinction in the US, damages are the norm.]
In short, your statement "you do not exercise your legal right to insist he slaughter it" assumes you have such a right; you do not under most jurisdictions.
Classes at HLS are not given a number. And there are very few (if any) courses at Harvard College with a 101 moniker.;-)
Also, this would be more realistic if it were...
The Codestorm Riots in the early 2000's were touched off by the second amended complaint in the SCO vs IBM intellectual property litigation. Comparing the outcome to the final holding in United Mine Workers v Gibbs, what does that implicate about Justice Brennan's views on bicameralism?
*insert sounds of entire class sleeping*
....
The point is this: creating a surveillance system will be too tempting to those that have a radical agenda on EITHER side of the spectrum. Swap out "homosexuals" with "pro-choice" and you have the same problem; the use of the surveillance system to terrorize clinics. There is a difference between "hiding" something and doing it "behind closed doors" and doing it with full surveillance.
I assure you, I live my life completely free from thought about who disagrees with my "lifestyle" as you so put it. I live in the snobby, liberal, elitist northeast (thank god) where it's perfectly acceptable for me to fall in love and spend the rest of my life with another male. Let me tell you, Cambridge is a wonderful bubble. Ditto New York. I act as I think appropriate, and I've had no problems.
I'm glad you don't see "homosexuality" as "valuable to existence or advancement of civilization" -- so does that mean you're denouncing all the works of Alan Turing? Snide asshole.
Who said anything about closed doors and anonymity? You completely missed the point of my statement.
For the record, I'm a member of a high profile legal advocacy group.
Also, the phrase "homosexuality is not a protected right" is a meaningless phrase. Please don't spout legal bullshit to a law student.
Because when I'm on a double date with a friend and he goes to kiss his girlfriend (in front of the camera) it's not a big deal, but when I go to kiss my boyfriend, suddenly the asshole with an agenda behind the camera gets all incensed. You *cannot* create a system like this without some group (anti-gay, anti-choice, what have you) wanting to get involved.
There are no facts here. Fuentes v Shevin -- you can't just sequester shit without due process. It's not just "you file a rule 26(b)(1) motion and "poof" you can barge in and take his computers...
Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland: ''Let the end be legitimate,'' he wrote, ''let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.''
He foreshadowed this in United States v Fischer: ''The government is to pay the debt of the Union, and must be authorized to use the means which appear to itself most eligible to effect that object. It has, consequently, a right to make remittance, by bills or otherwise, and to take those precautions which will render the transaction safe.''
Dada21, meet the necessary and proper clause. When combined with the commerce clause......
Your point of attack should be the commerce clause. Not the necessary and proper clause. However, once the commerce clause grants legitimacy, the NP clause actually *expands* congressional power. (i.e. NP is expansive, not restrictive)
Slashdot Mirror
The doctrine of latches called. It would like you to recognize that it exists, and is actually still "pounding on the law AND the facts." Given the success of the iPod (open and notorious) use -- even if Creative *had* a valid claim, Apple has a very strong latches defense. Unless there was interim tolling behind the scenes, this is a bit of a no brainer.
That's because the OP is an idiot. High fructose corn syrup has a high glycemic index. Fruit (as a result of the fiber and water) has a much lower glycemic index than a soda. It's a concentration balancing act.
High fructose corn syrup and fructose are world apart.
When you get fructose from fruit, you're also getting the fiber along with it, and a ton of water....when it comes from HFCS, with a mix of glucose thrown in, it's a whole new ballgame....
Somewhere, Richard Posner just had an orgasm. The only reason this is the case is because the norm in America is the remedy of the courts of law -- damages. If the default remedy in contracts were the specific performance awarded by the courts of equity, equitable breach wouldn't exist.
Equitable breach is also usually a straw man; in your scenario, B will most likely have to haul A into court in order to get the 2$ per widget in expectation damages that A owes. (A may actually owe B more than 10k because of reliance damages if the widgets are custom, etc.) Since under the American rule each side pays own attorney's fees, B ends up getting the shaft. Of course, without an Iron-Clad integration clause, someone cites Pacific Gas and every conference call and email gets tossed into the mix under the parole evidence rule and the case goes to hell in a handbasket as A attempts to invalidate the contract due to no "meeting of the minds."
Seriously, if you're attempting to win the John Olin award by posting on slashdot, it's not gonna happen.
You referenced in a way that perpetuates an urban myth that portrays the legal system in a heinously incorrect light. now go back to your cubicle, you sweaty long haired mongrel
Please check my post below. The facts in the "coffee case" have nothing to do with what you learned from the media. Try to be informed instead of looking like someone that has bought into the public hysteria.
I hate when people with no clue discuss Liebeck v McDonalds.
She didn't "lose on appeal" -- please shut the hell up.
The Lochner era called. It wants its rhetoric back. [I am not expressing agreement or disagreement with your substantial argument. Your rhetoric, however, has been abandoned half a century ago.]
Dear Mormons, I love your sexually repressed gay sons.
An agreement that he shall keep no waterfowl: only a court of equity can force him to slaughter it. In today's common jurisprudence, contract damages are the norm, NOT specific performance. If you'd like, we can discuss the difference between the courts of law and equity. In general, there has been something of a triumph of the courts of equity in the US, but only in VERY specific areas. Contract law is very much still limited to courts of law. [Although there is no longer a distinction in the US, damages are the norm.]
In short, your statement "you do not exercise your legal right to insist he slaughter it" assumes you have such a right; you do not under most jurisdictions.
No court of equity is going to give them a chunk of iTMS. Not going to happen. Damages are the standard remedy at law.
0.00000025 LoC. [assuming appox 1sqfoot for the lobster, 4mm sq foot for LoC]
posting right now from a harvard ip, i can't host wc3 custom maps. stupid port blocking. i can't ping shit and the latency is terrible. :(
Also, this would be more realistic if it were... </pedant>
.... The point is this: creating a surveillance system will be too tempting to those that have a radical agenda on EITHER side of the spectrum. Swap out "homosexuals" with "pro-choice" and you have the same problem; the use of the surveillance system to terrorize clinics. There is a difference between "hiding" something and doing it "behind closed doors" and doing it with full surveillance. I assure you, I live my life completely free from thought about who disagrees with my "lifestyle" as you so put it. I live in the snobby, liberal, elitist northeast (thank god) where it's perfectly acceptable for me to fall in love and spend the rest of my life with another male. Let me tell you, Cambridge is a wonderful bubble. Ditto New York. I act as I think appropriate, and I've had no problems. I'm glad you don't see "homosexuality" as "valuable to existence or advancement of civilization" -- so does that mean you're denouncing all the works of Alan Turing? Snide asshole.
Who said anything about closed doors and anonymity? You completely missed the point of my statement. For the record, I'm a member of a high profile legal advocacy group. Also, the phrase "homosexuality is not a protected right" is a meaningless phrase. Please don't spout legal bullshit to a law student.
Because when I'm on a double date with a friend and he goes to kiss his girlfriend (in front of the camera) it's not a big deal, but when I go to kiss my boyfriend, suddenly the asshole with an agenda behind the camera gets all incensed. You *cannot* create a system like this without some group (anti-gay, anti-choice, what have you) wanting to get involved.
dota crashes anyway
Where do you think big nuclei for atomic fission come from? Hint: All heavy elements are formed in the belly of large, hot stars.
i'm 23 and got the reference. ;-)
Want my civpro outline? My civpro exam is the 11th of jan. ;-)
(yes, i know, farkuckta after-braek finals.)
There are no facts here. Fuentes v Shevin -- you can't just sequester shit without due process. It's not just "you file a rule 26(b)(1) motion and "poof" you can barge in and take his computers...
Marshall in McCulloch v. Maryland: ''Let the end be legitimate,'' he wrote, ''let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.''
He foreshadowed this in United States v Fischer: ''The government is to pay the debt of the Union, and must be authorized to use the means which appear to itself most eligible to effect that object. It has, consequently, a right to make remittance, by bills or otherwise, and to take those precautions which will render the transaction safe.''
Even Scalia thinks you're wrong....
Dada21, meet the necessary and proper clause. When combined with the commerce clause......
Your point of attack should be the commerce clause. Not the necessary and proper clause. However, once the commerce clause grants legitimacy, the NP clause actually *expands* congressional power. (i.e. NP is expansive, not restrictive)
...Carmen Elektra? Um. Nice one. ;-)
...[and I'm gay and even I caught that one....]