Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Features

Gaining Firm Acceptance of a Profitability Model: A Consultant's Point of View Image

Gaining Firm Acceptance of a Profitability Model: A Consultant's Point of View

Kris Satkunas

As law firms grow in size, and expand geographically and across practice areas, the use of firm-wide profitability tools has become a business necessity. But understanding the urgency to adopt or update a profitability model doesn't guarantee its successful implementation.

April issue in PDF format Image

April issue in PDF format

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

…

Features

Exploring the Status of the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases Image

Exploring the Status of the Obvious Danger Doctrine in Failure-to-Warn Cases

James H. Rotondo, Robert E. Koosa, & James E. Hennessey

Traditional tort law principles provide that product manufacturers and sellers have a duty to warn of hidden risks that pose a danger to product users. As a corollary, courts generally hold that manufacturers and sellers have no duty to warn consumers of obvious dangers inherent in the product. Consequently, most judges have left to the jury the question of whether the danger of injury from a product is obvious. Against this backdrop, a recent decision has cast doubt on the accepted notion that obviousness is necessarily a question for the jury. Specifically, the Supreme Court of Michigan held in <i>Greene v. A.P. Products, Ltd.</i>, 717 N.W.2d 855, <i>reh'g denied</i>, 720 N.W.2d 748 (Mich. 2006) that, as a matter of law, hair oil posed an open and obvious danger to consumers that negated any duty to warn that the product could kill if ingested or inhaled.

April issue in PDF format Image

April issue in PDF format

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

&#133;

News Briefs Image

News Briefs

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

Highlights of the latest franchising news from around the country.

Features

Movers & Shakers Image

Movers & Shakers

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

News about lawyers and law firms in the franchising industry.

Features

Court Watch Image

Court Watch

Charles Miller

Highlights of the latest franchising cases from around the country.

Features

Q&A with Steven Toporoff, Franchise Program Coordinator, FTC Image

Q&A with Steven Toporoff, Franchise Program Coordinator, FTC

ALM Staff & Law Journal Newsletters

This is the conclusion of an interview with Steven Toporoff, Franchise Program Coordinator, Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') about the revisions to the Franchise Rule. Toporoff continues his remarks about earnings information contained in the New Rule, and he discusses how the FTC is reaching out to the franchise community and consumers in order to explain the provisions of the New Rule.

Parent Disclosure Under the Amended FTC Rule: The Parent Exposed Image

Parent Disclosure Under the Amended FTC Rule: The Parent Exposed

John R. F. Baer

In the October/November 2004 Special Issue of <i>FBLA</i>, we speculated that if there was one group that may be unhappy about the Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') Staff Report's proposed revisions to the FTC Franchise Rule, it had to be the parents of franchisors (or maybe franchisors who have parents). Now that the FTC has released the final amended FTC Franchise Rule, we know that a parent's disclosure burden will be increased. One provision may have a profound effect on how certain franchise companies do business. Because there are some ambiguities in what is being required, it may be prudent for the FTC to clarify its intention in the Guidelines it plans to issue.

e-Disclosure After the FTC Rule Amendments Image

e-Disclosure After the FTC Rule Amendments

Lee Plave

Whatever qualms there may have been about e-disclosure should, with the release of the FTC's amended Franchise Rule, be resolved. Let the record be clear: The Federal Trade Commission ('FTC') has removed all doubt with respect to e-disclosure &mdash; it is now officially sanctioned. Whatever concern there may have been, at this stage, is a matter of history.

Need Help?

  1. Prefer an IP authenticated environment? Request a transition or call 800-756-8993.
  2. Need other assistance? email Customer Service or call 1-877-256-2472.

MOST POPULAR STORIES

  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • 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.
    Read More ›
  • 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.
    Read More ›