Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Sophisticated User Defense in Minnesota: Weighing Knowledge
Claims involving a failure to warn are often centered around what a reasonable manufacturer or supplier should have foreseen was necessary to avoid creating an unreasonable risk of harm. If a supplier is deemed to have a duty to warn, the duty can be fulfilled by calling the hazards of the product directly to the attention of the eventual user; for example, through product labeling. Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd., 691 N.W.2d 38 (Mich.App., 2004). However, when, as is often the case, a product passes through the hands of multiple intermediaries between the supplier and the eventual user, the situation becomes murkier, and it becomes unclear who should shoulder the burden of the duty to warn. This is where the sophisticated user defense comes in.
Under the sophisticated user defense, a supplier has no duty to warn the ultimate user if it has reason to believe that the user will realize its dangerous condition. Gray v. Badger Mining Corp., 676 N.W.2d 268 (Minn. 2004). Different jurisdictions apply the concept in different ways and knowledge of your courts' take on the issue is important. Still, a closer look at how one jurisdiction handled the issue can serve as a jumping-off point for further discussion of the state of the law in other jurisdictions.
Gray v. Badger Mining Corp.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?