question archive Group 2: Chapter 3 – Questions 5 and 6 • After you have reviewed each case, you will want to analyze the issue based on the following: 1
Group 2: Chapter 3 – Questions 5 and 6 • After you have reviewed each case, you will want to analyze the issue based on the following: 1
Subject:LawPrice:13.86 Bought3
Group 2: Chapter 3 – Questions 5 and 6 • After you have reviewed each case, you will want to analyze the issue based on the following: 1. Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant). 2. Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns. 3. Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issues between the two parties). Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear. 4. Support your decisions with an appropriate rule of law. Questions for Group 2 Question 5: Missouri was International Shoe Corporation’s principal place of business, but the company employed between 11 and 13 salespersons in the state of Washington who exhibited samples and solicited orders for shoes from prospective buyers in Washington. The state of Washington assessed the company for contributions to a state unemployment fund. The state served the assessment on one of International Shoe Corporation’s sales representatives in Washington and sent a copy by registered mail to the company’s Missouri headquarters. International Shoe’s representative challenged the assessment on numerous grounds, arguing that the state had not properly served the corporation. Is the corporation’s defense valid? Why or why not? [ International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945).] Question 6: Nicastro, the plaintiff, was using a metal-shearing machine in New Jersey when he hurt his hand. The machine was produced by J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd., which manufactured the machine in England, where the company is based. However, Nicastro brought the company to court in New Jersey because that is where the injury occurred. The company argued that it could not be brought to court in New Jersey because the court did not have personal jurisdiction over it due to the company’s lack of minimum contacts in the state. Nicastro said that the company’s distributor for the United States sold the equipment in the country, company officials attended trade shows in the country, even if they were not in New Jersey, and the record shows that one machine ended up in New Jersey. Ultimately, the company knew that its U.S. distributor could potentially sell its products in any state and that any product could somehow end up in any state. On the other hand, the company did not travel to, advertise, or contact any residents of New Jersey. Do you think the company is subject to personal jurisdiction in the state of New Jersey? How do you believe the Supreme Court ruled in this case? Why? [J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780 (2011).]
Purchase A New Answer
Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts
GET A QUOTE
Answer Preview
Case Law Analysis
Question Five
The main parties involved in the case are International Shoe Company, the plaintiff, and Washington State as the defendant. The case was filed by ISC challenging Washington State for an email sent on assessing one of their employees.
There are various facts related to this case. First, ISC is subject to tax laws set by the Washington state. Although the company has its headquarters in Missouri, it has employees who operate and sell its products within Washington State. The company must thus contribute to Washington State’s unemployment fund. The unemployment taxes, however, vary from state to state. Second, ISC contributes to the Washington State’s unemployment fund for all its sales operatives within the state (International Shoe Co. v. Washington,1945). A problem was found on one of the employee’s payroll after assessing all the other employees. Finally, Washington State has the legal obligation to carry out an assessment on employee payroll to determine the employer's contributions for its unemployment fund(International Shoe Co. v. Washington,1945). It can dispute and fine a company for violation of its tax policies. It must, however, serve documents within the legal channels provided.
Two main legal issues arise as per the case. First, how much did ISC contribute to the unemployment fund in Washington State for its employees? Second, was ISC served through the proper channels? On the first issue, Washington State calculates an employer’s unemployment tax obligation based on its payroll within its boundaries and former employees.ISC should have proved that its claim was valid and that it has contributed the correct amount on behalf of its employee.
On the other hand, an email is not considered proof of notice for serving legal documents. However, ISC read the assessment and thus the reason for filing the case. It proves that they analyzed the documents sent through their verified email and decided to take legal action(International Shoe Co. v. Washington,1945). The corporation’s defence is thus not valid. They have a case to answer and must prove they made the correct contributions for the employee to Washington State.
Question 6
The case involved two main parties, namely J. McIntyre Machinery as the defendant and Robert Nicastro As the plaintiff. There are various facts involved in the case. Nicastro got injured when using a metal shearing machine in the state of New Jersey. He had purchased the machine in the state, although it was manufactured and assembled in England by Mcintyre Machinery law (J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro,2011). Second, the case was filed in New Jersey against a company that operates and is headquartered in England. The New Jersey Supreme court ruled that McIntyre Machinery had a case to answer as it had sales representatives in the state and had sold four similar machines in the state.
The stream of commerce rule can be applied to the case. As per the rule, companies are subject to state laws when they decide to place their goods or services for sale. They must expressly agree to the terms of operations in the given state. McIntyre Machinery was not subject to New Jersey laws having no specific clause in their trade agreement with the US to trade in specifically in New Jersey making the case a federal law (J. McIntyre Machinery, Ltd. v. Nicastro,2011). The Supreme Court thus reversed the earlier decisions of the New Jersey Supreme Court based on the company’s trade agreement. As per judgment upheld by the Supreme Court, McIntyre Machinery was not liable for the injuries caused to Nicastro. I would have also ruled in their favour. Nicastro should have sued the company in a federal court instead of the state court.
