FACULTYTALK Archives

January 2009

FACULTYTALK@LISTSERV.MIAMIOH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Keith A Maxwell <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk
Date:
Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:31:36 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
If we look at Gavin's original question as a conflicts of law problem, if the court applies the "place of formation rule," wouldn't the contract be considered to have been formed in the agent's (and the third party's) state, and thus legal? If the court applies the place with "the place with the most significant and real connection rule," it seems obvious that that place is the agent's state, and therefore a legal agreement.
 
Keith
 
Keith A. Maxwell, J.D.
Professor Emeritus
Legal Studies and Ethics in Business
University of Puget Sound
 
Adjunct Professor of Business Law
Dixie State College
Saint George, UT

________________________________

From: Academy of Legal Studies in Business (ALSB) Talk on behalf of Michael O'Hara
Sent: Tue 1/20/2009 10:41 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Agency question - refinement



ALSBTALK:

        Perhaps working in a State's legislature distorted my view of public policy.  But, relative to antitrust and barbering the activities of gambling, alcohol consumption, and prostitution are most often more likely to be seen as far less benign than barbering. 

        Trans-jurisdictional gambling has been the subject of substantial legislation and regulation both at the federal and the State levels.  If memory serves, then during fall 2008 credit card issuers were prohibited from completing trans-jurisdictional gambling debts unless the gamble was lawful in both jurisdictions.  The Mann Act addresses some aspects of trans-jurisdictional prostitution, as Spritzer knows oh so well.  But, recently the US Supreme Court weighted the dormant Commerce Clause versus a State's processes for age verification at upon shipper deliver and saw preemption.  However, if the wine were French and the regulation federal, then I suspect the Supreme Court would have barred entry rather than required it. 

Michael

Professor Michael J. O'Hara, J.D., Ph.D.
Finance, Banking, & Law Department
College of Business Administration
Roskens Hall 502 
University of Nebraska at Omaha 
Omaha  NE  68182 
[log in to unmask] 
(402) 554 - 2823 voice  fax (402) 554 - 2680
http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm <http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/web/ohara.htm> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2