Funny Face Case Study

703 Words2 Pages

The appropriate court for this lawsuit depends upon several factors. Three important considerations include personal jurisdiction, subject matter jurisdiction and minimum contacts. Personal jurisdiction is the power the courts have over parties involved. Minimum contact is the contact required between a party and a state in order for the courts of that state to constitutionally assert power of that party within specific boundary (Kubasek, p. 42). Because Funny Face promoted their product over the internet and sold to customers worldwide this would apply to them. The reason of the lawsuit stems from the aftershave lotion that caused the side effect of a permanent blue face for a Donald Margolin. The cause of the discoloring was due to the replacement of a key ingredient to PYR (a chemical emulsifier) which is not FDA approved. The contract between Funny Face and Novelty Now notes that all disputes must be heard in the state of Florida. Subject matter jurisdiction refers to the nature of the claim or controversy. Subject matter jurisdiction is the power of a …show more content…

Mediation is typically used in disputes involving employers and workers where it would be important to maintain the working relationship (Kubasek, p. 72). Mediation, in this scenario would not be beneficial because Margolin may ask for substantial compensation and Funny face could refusing to pay. Also may want to seek criminal charges on Funny Face. Fraud is the intentional deception that causes harm to someone else (Kubasek, p. 153). Chris instructed Novelty Now to substitute an ingredient, PYR, in the formula of the aftershave, knowing that PYR is not FDA approved. Funny Face may be held responsible as Chris made the decision to change ingredients. Novelty Now could also be held responsible as the manufacturer of the product for knowing the ingredient was not FDA approved and could have stopped

Open Document