Search

The article discusses about the marginal improvement under Federal Trade Commission Act. Topics of discussion includes The FTC's authority to obtain equitable monetary relief in federal court under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Under Section 13(b), courts typically award injunctive relief and equitable monetary remedies. Injunctive relief consists of an order requiring the defendant to cease its illegal conduct.

The article focuses on defendant-oriented injunction to avoid conflating such orders with other types of nationwide or universal injunctions. It mentions U.S. Supreme Court expressly addressed the validity of nationwide defendant-oriented injunctions, Perkins v. Lukens Steel Co. rejected them. It also mentions federal courts issued broad nationwide or statewide defendant-oriented injunctions aimed at enforcing the rights of third-party nonlitigants.

Despite the vast sums transferred through the legal system, the foundations of the procedures used to compensate plaintiffs for unobservable losses remain unclear. Standard remedies can compensate plaintiffs for unknown harms, but it is expensive to do so. Damage awards will generally undercompensate or overcompensate a plaintiff whose true harm is unknown, while equitable remedies that provide more tailored compensation are generally wasteful. In this article I develop a novel remedy that compensates plaintiffs for unobservable private values at the lowest possible cost to the defendant. This remedy consists of offering the plaintiff the choice between intermediate damages and an inalienable injunction that restores the underlying harm at the conclusion of the trial. I show that this remedy is robust to errors by the court and potential post judgment renegotiation. Furthermore, I demonstrate that this remedy reduces litigants' incentives to lie during trial. Finally, I consider ex ante deterrence and show conditions under which the remedy improves social welfare relative to optimal damages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On what grounds are private law remedies awarded? Focusing on private law remedies that require defendants to do or not to do something, I argue that there are three basic "causes of action" in the common law: rights-threats, wrongs and injustices. Specifically, I argue that: (1) proof of a rights-threat is the cause of action for injunctions, specific performance, orders to pay a sum due under a contract, orders for the recovery of land or other property, and some (not all) orders to pay damages that are given in lieu of specific relief; (2) proof of a wrong is the cause of action for awards of "direct" ("non-consequential") damages; and (3) proof of an injustice is the cause of action for most restitutionary awards, awards of consequential damages, and certain statutorily-authorised orders. The essay also briefly discusses the meaning of "remedy" and the general role of judicial remedies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses several court cases including Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, Lopez v. Whirlpool Corp., and Willis Elec. Co. v. Polygroup Trading Ltd.. Topics include plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief was mooted by defendants' change in policy in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, and defendant sought sanctions against plaintiff's counsel for alleged discovery related misconduct in Lopez v. Whirlpool Corp.

In recent years, there has been an increase in consumer protection class action litigation in federal courts. These suits arise from a group of consumers who have felt deceived by a particular product, ceased using that product, and then tried to sue a defendant manufacturer through state consumer protection statutes. Often, these individuals seek to enjoin the defendant's use of an allegedly unfair business practice, such as "all natural" labeling. Since the plaintiff no longer uses the product, however, many district courts have refused to recognize that they may be at risk of a future injury and have held that these plaintiffs do not have standing to seek an injunction in the federal forum. This Note discusses the tension between the purposes and aims of state consumer protection statutes and the heavily ingrained--yet vague--Supreme Court precedent regarding Article 111 standing. While many lower courts continue to conservatively interpret the Court's decisions on standing, some California district courts have bucked this trend and begun granting consumer plaintiffs standing. This Note ultimately concludes that consumer classes must begin relying on individuals who continue to use the disputed product throughout litigation or redefine the scope of their future injury to better conform to current Supreme Court precedent. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the tort law as the form of institutionalized revenge. It is mentioned that burdens are imposed by tort remedies including injunctions restitutional remedies and compensatory damages thereby limiting the freedom of action of defendants. Also discussed are punitive damages which serve to punish.

The article focuses on the contempt analysis on the identification of the process of treating injunction in bankruptcy. It states that a contempt power was used by the court to determine if the compliance with an injunction turns on when a defendant has assets. It mentions that bankruptcy is a process of getting and categorizing all claims against debtor and apportioning the assets or the future income of the debtor. It relates the lawsuit filed by the State of Ohio against Chem-Dyne Corp. and its chief executive officer William Kovacs for state environmental laws violation.

The article focuses on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (PHFA) and the impact of mass media in individual privacies in Great Britain. It explores the common claims under the law for harassment in cases that involves the media, and the scope to which it can be applied to secure the private life of an individual. It states that the general application of PHFA has covered various situations, which includes anonymity on internet postings, constant racist remarks, and newspaper publications. It mentions that PHFA injunctions may arbitrate the Article 10, which is the rights of defendants, and these injunctions have been established to prevent protestors from conversing with employees from organizations whose actions they observe offensive.

The article focuses on the problems and abuses underlying class adjudication of claims and expresses why defendants are starting to seek such injunctive relief in the U.S. It offers an assessment of the doctrinal justifications for such injunctions through analyzing whether a denial of certification satisfies the requirements for issue preclusion. It also highlights the Bridgestone II decision and examines how other courts have ignored such a remedy.

Copyright of Romanian Case Law Review / Revista Română de Jurisprudenţă is the property of Universul Juridic Publishing House and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)