The of Mr David Adamson in Idaho - Case Study Example

Mr. David Adamson’s Case This paper will examine the David Adamson case discussing pertinent elements of the case such as minimum contracts, long arm service of process and the basis for disavowing a contract. The present case presents several contentious issues, for instance, whether or not the business activity constituted a contract and whether the court can grant long term service of process to the complainant thereby bringing the case from Kentucky to Idaho. Minimum Contract In order to determine whether or not the sale of alcohol to the minors constitutes a minimum contract, the court will analyze the availability of a business relationship to constitute a legal contract. Firstly, in the state of Idaho, any beer manufacturer domiciled outside Idaho can distribute beer in Idaho provided that the manufacturer distributes the beer to an Idaho licensed location prior to the distribution of beer in Idaho. This means that the company had admission into Idaho thereby allowing it to sell alcohol to the minors involved in the case. Notably, the company’s website from which the minors acquired sufficient information to purchase the beer in Idaho did not provide for online purchases of alcohol. Therefore, in order for minors to acquire the beer, there must have been access between the minors and the company allowing the minors to exchange payment information with the company thereby allowing the company to sell them the alcohol. In essence, the exchange of goods for consideration (payment through the Visa Card) constitutes a minimum contract (Barnett 107). Transfer of the Case In order for the transfer of a case to conform to legal requirements, the transfer must constitute fairness to all parties, i.e. both the defendant and complainant. Transferring a case from one state to another should satisfy substantial justice. In the International Shoe v. State of Washington case, the judge ruled that even though an entity does not have a permanent domicile in a state, provided that the entity operates in that state, the organization is subject to the laws and regulations of that law (Lewis 94). According to U.S.C.A. Constitutional Amendment 14, “The demand that a corporation be ‘present’ in the state to satisfy due process of law requirement for the purpose of maintenance of suit against it in courts of state may be met by such contacts of the corporation with the state of the forum as make it reasonable, in the context of the federal system of government, to require the corporation to defend the suit which is brought there, and an ‘estimate of inconveniences’ which would result in the conduct of a trial away from its ‘home’ or principal place of business would be relevant in such connection” (Beeman 112). Therefore, the beer manufacturer’s operations in Idaho constitute allow the transfer of the case from Kentucky to Idaho. This not only upholds the notions of fair play but also upholds the requirements of substantial justice to both the complainant and defendant.   In addition, in order to determine the viability of transferring the case from Kentucky to Idaho, it is pertinent to take into consideration certain elements. This includes elements such as the place of injury, place where the business in question took place and the venue connected to the relationship between the entities implicated in the case (Gaylord and Miller 214). Given the context in which the circumstances of the case occurred; it is evident that a transfer to Idaho is the optimal choice. This is because Idaho is the place where injury, i.e. the sale of alcohol to minors occurred and where the conduct that brought injury occurred (i.e. the sale of alcohol). In addition, Idaho is the optimal venue since it is the place where the business in question occurred and is also the domicile of the witnesses i.e. Adamson’s son and his friends thereby facilitating easy access for the case’s witnesses. Conflict of Laws (section 6), which was reiterated by the judge’s ruling in Bertram v. Norden, holds “In determining the choice of law, the court must consider the following issues, which are evaluated according to their relative importance to the case: (1) the place of the injury; (2) the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (3) the domicile, residence, nationality, place of incorporation, and place of business of the parties; (4) the place where the relationship between the parties, if any, is located; and (5) any factors under the Restatement section setting choice-of-law principles, which the court may deem relevant to the litigation". (Beeman 82). Therefore, a transfer of the case from Kentucky to Idaho would uphold fair play and substantial justice. Contract Formation The contract in question was formed when the company accepted payment in exchange for the beer it sold to the minors. The fact that the beer manufacturer obtained consideration in exchange for the goods (alcohol) sold to minors is sufficient evidence that the manufacturer intended to execute the contract. However, the contract cannot be enforced because it encompasses minors as parties to the contract. Under US law, minors cannot enter into contracts unless for the purchase of necessities for which the minors must pay full price. A contract involving the purchase of alcohol, which is essentially not a necessity, does not constitute a legal contract. Therefore, the contract involving the sale of alcohol to Adamson’s son and his friends is not enforceable. On the other hand, US laws allow minors to escape contracts made for purchases of non-essential commodities. The adults in the contract (the beer manufacturer) are bound by the contract, but the minors can escape the contract. Since the contract, in question exemplifies a barter transaction in which a purchase is made in exchange for a cash consideration (or Visa Card consideration in this case). Such a contract is recognizable through legal fiction as lacking the proper components of a contract, for instance, the absence of future action (Barnett 99). Therefore, the minors cannot disavow this trade. The alcohol should, therefore, not be returned since the minors have no capacity to disavow the contract. The juvenile system is a viable alternative to bring charges against the minors for purchasing alcohol and impersonating an adult to acquire the alcohol. Misrepresentation of age is a serious offense and provides for penalties against all minors who present fake or false identification documents to present the infants as being of legal age for alcohol purchase. If the case is heard in Idaho, the beer manufacturer will suffer various consequences of selling alcohol to minors. The company may be liable for money damages. The manufacturer will receive a providing for minor ticket, which brings money damages or fines of between $500 and $1,000. However, if the court finds that the manufacturer has a record of selling alcohol to minors, the seller’s liquor license could be revoked. However, if the father does not present any tangible evidence of his claims that the beer manufacturer sold beer to the minors, the court will be forced to consider substantial evidence provided by the minors. However, if the evidence is still insufficient, the court will dismiss the case at hand. However, if the case remains in Kentucky, the father still has certain remedies at his disposal. The father can pursue the case since federal laws also prohibit the sale of alcohol to infants. Under Article XXI of the Constitution of the US, states can regulate alcohol distribution through local ordinances. Moreover, federal law disallows the vending of alcohol to infants (Lewis 54). This means that the father can still pursue the case if it is heard in a Kentucky-based federal court. Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow provides that the parties of a case must have a profound interest in the case’s outcome. Therefore, since the notion of standing to sue applies to the minor’s father, the case can be heard in a federal court, in Kentucky. As a judge, I would rule that the beer seller pays damages of $1,000, and the minors undergo juvenile proceedings to ascertain their liability for identity misrepresentation. Works cited Barnett, R. E. The Oxford introductions to U.S. law: Contracts. Massachusetts: Oxford University Press, 2010. Print. Beeman, R. The Penguin guide to the United States Constitution: A Fully Annotated Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution and Amendments, and Selections from the Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books, 2010. Print. Gaylord , J. A., and Miller, R. L.  Business law today: The essentials. Ohio: South-Western College/West, 2003. Print. Lewis, J. A. A Zero-Tolerance Juvenile Alcohol Law: Why Legislation wont Work. New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing, 2009. Print. Read More