Critical Legal Thinking Case 5.1

Issue

Is Zagat Survey, LLC liable for commercial disparagement?

Rule

Citing from the tort of commercial disparagement, the act should exhibit the following elements;

• The statement made should be proved to be false
• The intention of the statement should be deemed to have negative financial consequences
• The plaintiff incurs considerable financial loss because of the statement
• The defendant made the statement cognizant that it was false (Cheeseman, 2014)

Therefore, if the statement exhibits these elements, it is regarded that the defendant is liable for disparagement under the tort of commercial disparagement.

Analysis

Zagat derives the statements from surveys conducted on the customers of the restaurants and publish them in their restaurant guide (Cheeseman, 2014). This means that the statements made were just opinions but not facts. Furthermore, Lucky Cheng’s restaurant could not prove that Zagat intended to cause financial loss by making the statement.

Conclusion

It is undeniable that the statements that Zagat made did not exhibit the elements of the tort of commercial disparagement meaning that Zagat was no liable for disparagement.

Ethics Case 6.7   

Issue

Does the warrantless search of an automobile junkyard pursuant as approved by the state statute violate the provisions of the 4^th amendment?

Rule   

According to the 4^th amendment, unless upon a credible cause; searches and seizers are regarded illegitimate regardless of the presence of a warrant (Cheeseman, 2014). Searches and seizures are approved only if supported by an oath and affirmation from the parties indicating the reason for the seizures. Thus, conducting searches in this case does not violate the provisions of the 4^th amendment.

Analysis   

The state statute did sanctioned warrantless seizures without either a probable cause or affirmation by the junkyard pursuant (Cheeseman, 2014). This means that the searches and seizers violated the constitutional rights of Burger as provided by the 4^th amendment.

Conclusion   

Since the searches violated Burger’s constitutional rights, it is factual that he did not act unethically by trying to suppress the evidence.

Ethics Case 7.6

Issue

Can the Passport’s use of Presley’s copyrighted materials be regarded as fair use?

Rule

As indicated in section 501 of chapter 5 in U.S constitution, copyright infringement involves reproducing, distributing and publicize any work without the approval of the copyright owner (Cheeseman, 2014). On the other hand, fair use is delineated as use of copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner for limited purpose.

Analysis

The purpose of using Presley’s copyrighted materials by Passport cannot be regarded as fair use because the intent was to make financial profit and not for limited purposes such as criticizing or commenting (Cheeseman, 2014).

Conclusion   

Since Passport sold the videos commercially without the permission of the copyright owner, it is undeniable that Passport acted unethically.

Policy Case 8.1 

Issue

Did Papa John’s International Inc. engaged in false advertising through their slogan “Better Ingredients, Better Pizza”?

Rule

According to section 43(a) of the Lanham act, false advertising involves false representation of quality of the products or services, false representation of the products’ origin and use of other company’s distinctive mark to advertise the products (Cheeseman, 2014). On the other hand, puffery in advertising refers to exaggerated praise of products or services. The difference between false and puffery advertising is based on the fact that in puffery, the product might have the quality but not as much as that being advertised while in false advertising, the product is completely misrepresented (Cheeseman, 2014).

Analysis   

In this case, Papa John’s advertising cannot be regarded as false advertising because Pizza Hut Inc. did not present valid evidence to show misrepresentation of the product. Therefore, the act can only be regarded as puffery since it was not proved that Papa John’s pizza attained the advertised quality. 

Conclusion

It is undeniable that consumers cannot be able to see through the company’s puffery citing because they only rely on the taste and the ingredients written for them on the product’s container.

Reference      

Cheeseman, H. R. (2014). Contemporary business law and online Commerce Law.Prentice Hall ISBN: 978-0-133-57816-4