Beneficial Innovations: Google - Essay Example

BENEFICIAL INNOVATIONS V GOOGLE The sources of law that are applicable to this case are the Uniform Commercial and Willard v Taylor 557 (1989). The Uniform Commercial Code is a legislation that governs business transactions while Willard v Taylor is a case that concerns breach of contract. The Uniform Commercial Code will be binding in this case because the elements of contract formation are contained in this case. The contract that was breached by Beneficial Innovations was constructed per the provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code and, therefore, the applicable principles in determining whether there was a breach of contract can be found in this code. The Uniform Commercial Code has been promulgated in several US states and this makes its application binding in commercial transaction cases in various States. On the other hand, the case of Willard v Taylor will only be advisory in respect to the case of Beneficial v Google since the facts in the two cases are not identical and thus the outcome in the two will be different. Additionally, the case is not current and it does not reflect all the issues contained in the current case. The rapid shifting dynamics of the contents and requirements of contract law makes the case only advisory1. The ethical issues involved in this legal dispute include trust and inappropriate charges. The initial contract between Google and Beneficial Innovations provided that Beneficial would not bring patent infringement claims against Google or its customers. When Beneficial brought a claim for infringement of patents by Google‘s customers, it breached the agreement it had entered into agreeing not to sue Google or its customers. This breach violated the trust that had been established when the contract was formed. The claim by Beneficial for damages also placed inappropriate charges on Google as the action was against the agreement. Under duty based ethics, the outcome in this case would be to find Beneficial Innovations in breach of contract as allowing them to collect from the patent infringement claims would be harmful to Google. Duty based ethics require that if a party could be injured, then corrective measures should be taken to eliminate the harm. Beneficial‘s actions are harmful and finding them in breach of contract would correct the breach by deterring them from further infringement. On the other hand, under the outcome based ethics an outcome in favor of Google would be suitable. Outcome based ethics provide that the outcome any event should yield the greatest good for the greatest number. Beneficial brought an infringement claim against several Google customers. In respect to this case, finding Beneficial liable for breach of contract would yield a greater good for a greater number2. Due to the breach of contract, Google was affected and allowing it to recover damages from Beneficial for breach of contract would be the most appropriate outcome in the two ethics theories. The outcome in this case was that Beneficial Innovations was in breach of contract when it sought damages from Google‘s customers. In arriving at its decision the court observed that Beneficial went back on the terms of the contract it had entered into with Google. Google had previously entered into a contract with Beneficial where the two parties had reached an agreement which included protection of Google and its customers from any infringement claims by Beneficial. Beneficial‘s actions were in breach of contract and Google was entitled to damages. The court therefore found Beneficial innovations in breach of contract and were required to pay minimal damages of $1 to Google. The outcome in this case will be binding on all similar cases filed in the same court. The outcome will also be binding on all courts below the District court and only be advisory in superior courts. The decision will also be binding in cases with similar facts in lower courts in other states. The outcome is also advisory to other higher courts in other states. The outcome of the court was appropriate in this case as a breach of contract necessitates an award of damages for the injured party. Allowing a party to recover damages for breach of contract puts the injured party at a position they would have been if the breach had not occurred. An award of damages also deters the other party from any further breaches of the contract. In this case awarding Google nominal damages of $1 does not put the party at a position it would have been if the contract was not breached but acts as a deterrent for Beneficial innovations against further breach of the contract. The outcome is also appropriate as it shows the courts willingness to respect the intentions of parties to a contract. Google‘s intend in entering into the contract with Beneficial was to ensure that Beneficial would not bring claims of patent infringement against Google or its customers. The courts acknowledgment of this intention is reflected its decision finding Beneficial in breach of contract and liable for damages3. In my view, I agree with the outcome in the legal dispute between Google and Beneficial Innovations. The courts decision in finding Beneficial in breach of contract is appropriate in this case as it respects the intention of the parties to the contract in question. Allowing Beneficial to go back on its agreement with Google would violate the essence of contracts as this would allow parties to enter into contracts they would not respect. Legitimate contracts between parties should be enforceable in courts and the courts should enforce such contracts in a manner that is consistent with the intention of the parties to the contract. Allowing a party to recover damages for breach of contract ensures that contracts are enforceable and parties who breach a contract must pay damages. The outcome in this case, although, it only awarded nominal damages would act as an effective deterrence for further breaches of the contract. This position reflects on the function of the court in determining cases and rendering its outcome based mainly on the intention of the parties when they entered into the contract. In my view, therefore, the outcome in this legal dispute was correct and no changes are necessary in any legislation regarding the case. Bibliography Ferrell, Odies C., and John Fraedrich. Business ethics: Ethical decision making & cases. Cengage Learning, 2014. Jain, Sankalp. "Importance & Significance of Damages as a Remedy for Breach of Contract." Available at SSRN 2461377 (2014). Karmasek, Jessica. “Google wins $1 jury verdict against patent troll,” Feb 6 2014. Legal news line http://legalnewsline.com/news/247036-google-wins-1-jury-verdict-against-patent-troll. Read More