Author Question: An agency is created when an agent agrees to act for, or in place of, the: a. third party b. ... (Read 60 times)

NguyenJ · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

An agency is created when an agent agrees to act for, or in place of, the:
a. third party
b. representative c. shareholder
d. attorney
e. none of the other choices are correct

Question 2

Jurisdiction. KaZaA BV was a company formed under the laws of the Netherlands. KaZaA distributed KaZaA Media Desktop (KMD) software, which enabled users to exchange, via a peer-to-peer transfer network, digital media, including movies and music. KaZaA also operated the KaZaA.com Web site, through which it distributed the KMD software to millions of California residents and other users. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc, and other parties in the entertainment industries based in California filed a suit in a federal district court against KaZaA and others, alleging copyright infringement. KaZaA filed a counterclaim, but while legal action was pending, the firm passed its assets and its Web site to Sharman Networks, Ltd., a company organized under the laws of Vanuatu (an island republic east of Australia) and doing business principally in Australia. Sharman explicitly disclaimed the assumption of any of KaZaA's liabilities. When the plaintiffs added Sharman as a defendant, Sharman filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that the court did not have jurisdiction. Would it be fair to subject Sharman to suit in this case? Explain.

upturnedfurball · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

Jurisdiction
The court denied Sharman's motion to dismiss. The court explained that fairness consists principally of ensuring that jurisdiction over a person is not exercised absent fair warning that a particular activity may subject that person to the jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign. Thus, the touchstone constitutional inquiry is whether the defendant's conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there. In this case, Sharman provides its KMD software to millions of users every week . . . . Sharman has not denied and cannot deny that a substantial number of its users are California residents, and thus that it is, at a minimum, constructively aware of continuous and substantial commercial interaction with residents of this forum. Further, Sharman is well aware that California is the heart of the entertainment industry, and that the brunt of the injuries described . . . is likely to be felt here. It is hard to imagine on these bases alone that Sharman would not reasonably anticipate being haled into court in California. However, jurisdiction is reasonable for an important added reason: Sharman's effective predecessor, Kazaa BV, was engaged in this very litigation when Sharman was formed. . . . Because Sharman has succeeded Kazaa BV in virtually every aspect of its business, Sharman reasonably should have anticipated being required to succeed Kazaa BV in this litigation as well. If Sharman wished to structure its primary conduct with some minimum assurance that it would not be haled into court in this forum, it simply could have avoided taking over the business of a company already enmeshed in litigation here.