Lyon vs. Adgraphics - Case Study Example

On his part, Sherman could use the argument that he is not under any legal obligation to sell his business only to Lyon. He could strengthen his case if he has included the clause that the counteroffer is subject to cancellation by the present owner of Ad graphics without assigning any reason whatsoever. In this case, the role of Robert Renault of V.R. Brokers is crucial in bringing about an amicable, out-of-court settlement. A court proceeding could prove to be messy for Sherman and question his personal integrity. 2. Pavlik vs.

LaneThe federal court ruled that "Pavlik was aware of the danger, so the warning was adequate, and in any case, a warning would have had no effect, so proximate case could not exist." The case is tilted in favor of Lane, manufacturer of Zeus bran butane. It is just as good as any open-and-shut case. The tragic end of the victim, Stephen Pavlik's life is the result of his own desire to "get high" by inhaling the dangerous substance which the manufacturer has already cautioned against in bold capitals on the fuel's can.

The victim was 20 years of age when the accident occurred. As such, he was quite mature and fully aware of the dangerous consequences of his debilitating addiction. The victim's death is the result of willful inhalation and not due to leakage or spill due to the inferior quality of the can. Nonetheless, even if the plaintiff's appeal against the court's decision is taken up for hearing it is likely to make it obligatory for the manufacturer to highlight the warning on the fuels can more forcefully.

In such an eventuality, the manufacturer could be told to brand the content in the can as "POISON" with the emblem of the skull as the warning sign above or below the word 'POISON" and the printed warning "DO NOT BREATHE SPRAY" must also continue to be used along with information of first aid to neutralize the fuel's effects, if accidentally inhaled.