Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Domino's Prevails Against Franchisee in U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of Domino's Pizza in a case brought under '1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 by the sole shareholder of a corporation who alleged that Domino's breach of several contracts with the corporation was based upon racial animus toward him. Domino's Pizza, Inc. v. McDonald, 126 S.Ct. 1246 (2006).
Domino's had entered into contracts with the corporation for the development of four Domino's Pizza stores in the Las Vegas area. Disputes arose under the contract, and the contract went uncompleted. The corporation filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy apparently because of the failed contracts. The bankruptcy trustee settled the contract claims with Domino's and gave Domino's a full release.
While the bankruptcy was still pending, the shareholder brought suit against Domino's for violation of '1981. Section 1981 protects the equal right of all persons to make and enforce contracts without regard to race. The statute defines the making and enforcing of contracts to include the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. The courts have held that a private right of action exists for violations of '1981. See, Bryant v. Aiken Regional Medical Centers Inc. 333 F.3d 356 (4th Cir. 2003), cert. denied 540 U.S. 1106 (2004). The shareholder alleged that the contract breaches had caused harm to him personally by causing him to suffer monetary damages as well as losses for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and humiliation.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.