Does US law have a notion of supply chain management? I'm reading about a recent lawsuit filed by Delta Airlines against one of its vendors. Also see Delta Sues Software Provider Over Data Breach and Lawsuits target Delta and vendor for cybersecurity breach. Delta's position is, the vendor is responsible: Any liability coming out of that breach, which is minimal, is going to be the responsibility of the vendor, which is [24]7,” said Delta CEO Ed Bastian in an interview with The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “We’ve been very clear about that. It was their breach, not ours. In the software security and risk management fields, we would hold Delta Airlines responsible because Delta is responsible for its supply chain. That is, Delta is responsible for its vendors it chooses. See, for example, NIST SP 800-53A, Assessing Security and Privacy Controls in Federal Information Systems and Organizations, Item SA-12. Does US law not recognize supply chains and not hold companies responsible for them? If not, then what stops someone or a corporation from setting up corporations to sidestep requirements, regulation and oversight? For the second questions, suppose it would cost a company $10 million dollars to implement a particular program. The company determines it wants to give the money to share holders instead, so they setup an overseas corporation and pays the overseas company $100,000 a year to do the job it was supposed to be doing. It does not matter how poor a job the overseas company is performing since the goal is to offload risk and minimize cost, not comply.
Does US law have a notion of supply chain management? There is no need for it, since this kind of disputes can be adjudged under contract law. For purposes of legal analysis, supply chain is nothing more than a scenario of independent contracts, each one typically involving different and unrelated parties. Based on the article(s) you share, Delta simply is trying to shift the blame and intertwine independent contracts: one with the plaintiff customers, the other with its provider. The customers only have standing to sue Delta because that is the entity with which they entered a contract (here, in the form of airfare purchases). To prevail in a lawsuit against other entities such as the provider, the plaintiff customers would need to resort to other legal theories and be able to prove the additional elements thereof. Here, it seems unlikely that a decision [by the customers] to expand litigation against other entities will facilitate the remedies to which the plaintiff customers are entitled. The most Delta can do is to file a third-party complaint against the provider, request that the provider be added as co-defendant, or sue the provider separately.
new-jersey I'm going to provide an answer based on my experience and obligations as a Professional Engineer (PE), which is generally similar to the obligations of an Registered Architect (RA). You do not state exactly what is meant by 'things go seriously wrong with the project,' but in general it doesn't matter. What truly matters is that Alice is the Registered Architect and Belle is not; this is reflected in the billings whereby Alice is charging $200 an hour and Belle is $100 an hour. The fact that things have gone seriously wrong with the project is now Alice's fault. Even if the fault is in an error that Belle made, it is still Alice's fault because of their obligation of 'Responsible Charge'. In NJ, the definition for Responsible Charge is detailed in Chapter 13:27 for RAs and 13:40 for PEs, but is generally the same to mean that the professional in responsible charge shall provide effective supervision over all aspects of the work. Would the misrepresentation be considered to be &quot;material&quot;? Probably not unless either the contract provided a clear definition on what is meant by the term 'architect' or there is relevant law that defines what that term is and how it may be used within business. In NJ, there is a definition for 'Engineer', but it's only applicable within the bounds of Chapter 13:40 and is not intended to limit how the word might be used throughout the State. As a whole, someone operating a train can still call themselves an 'Engineer'. Furthermore, we use the term to describe lots of different people within the engineering profession. For example, you might see billings for Engineer I, Engineer II, Engineer III, Engineer IV, etc. all attempting to provide more diverse billing structures to make hourly rates match experience levels. Furthermore, there are plenty of times in the United States as a whole, where someone might be fully registered and licensed in one state but not another. Would Conrad have to prove that he would not have entered into the contract if he had known that Belle was not an architect? It's likely not relevant. As I described above, there are a litany of reasons why both could be described as an Architect, but what truly matters is that one of them is a Registered Architect and thus has responsible charge over the issuance of plans. Does Conrad have to show that the standard of work from Belle was not the standard of work that would have come from an architect? No. Alice is the Registered Architect who signed the plans. The standard of work by Belle is by default the standard of work of Alice whom has responsible charge. If Alice has issued plans that are fundamentally flawed, the error is their fault. Conrad does not doubt that the hours attributed to Belle are honestly attributed, but is it material that the work is shown as having been done by &quot;Belle (Architect)&quot;? No. As a matter of resolution for this, I can say that you're more likely to get something done in a cost-effective manner by raising a complaint with Alice than anyone else. To exemplify, a few years back a friend of mine had hired an architect to design a building addition for their home. The architect's scope of work included completing a survey of the existing structure so they could base their design upon it. During construction, it was revealed partway through that the proposed expansion was going to conflict with the existing windows on the second floor. This is not acceptable for a litany of reasons, but it should've been discovered in design, not construction. Reviewing this issue with my friends, I encouraged my friends to document the issue in detail, meet with the Registered Architect on-site, and demand a solution. Thankfully, this went well and the RA accepted fault for the error. The costs of revising plans and additional construction costs was simply borne by the RA. Had the RA refused to accept fault, the next alternative would've been to make a claim against the RA's insurance carrier for Errors and Omissions. E&amp;O insurance is stupidly expensive, but also absolutely necessary for an RA to operate. It's often much cheaper to just pay the cost of plan revisions and construction change orders than to have a lot of claims on your E&amp;O.
We can assume there was a meeting of the minds when the contract was drafted, and both parties expected payments to me made based on product usage. Plaintiff alleges that this did not happen. Thus plaintiff is indeed alleging that the contract was breached. Now plaintiff alleges that defendant broke the contract, while defendant counters that plaintiff broke the contract. "[T]o be determined by tracking software" is woefully ambiguous. The court will want to know which party drafted the contract, as disputes arising from ambiguity are often resolved in favor of the non-drafting party.
You should probably get a lawyer, but my reading is this: The company whose SDK you use owns their SDK, owns their code, and is free to take any of your ideas how to improve their code without paying you. But they say that ideas are ten a penny, so this is mostly there to prevent pointless lawsuits. On the other hand, it says that everything you do with your product is yours. I might be completely wrong, that's why you should get a lawyer.
I make a copy of any important receipt printed on thermal paper, since the terms of many sellers and manufacturers require receipts for disputes. But I'm not aware of any law that says they have to make it convenient to maintain a receipt or other proof of purchase. However, when a company makes their terms unclear, unexpected, or difficult to comply with it seems there is often a lawyer ready to step up and file a class action lawsuit. Here's one archive to give you an idea of what companies will settle. In the United States the FTC is also empowered by law to "protect consumers," which means that if "disappearing" receipts become a widespread problem for consumers they could take action on the government's authority: The Federal Trade Commission Act is the primary statute of the Commission. Under this Act, the Commission is empowered, among other things, to (a) prevent unfair methods of competition, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce; (b) seek monetary redress and other relief for conduct injurious to consumers; (c) prescribe trade regulation rules defining with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive, and establishing requirements designed to prevent such acts or practices; (d) conduct investigations relating to the organization, business, practices, and management of entities engaged in commerce; and (e) make reports and legislative recommendations to Congress. Given the above, I wouldn't be surprised to see either a class-action lawsuit or FTC rule that requires retailers to provide "durable" receipts, or some convenient substitute.
Contracts that violate local law are void in just about every jurisdiction, as are contracts against clearly defined public policy. In many cases, laws are specifically designed to restrict otherwise valid contracts; for instance, in the US, an employment contract that pays less than $7.25 an hour will normally be invalid, even if the company and the employee both agree to the reduced wage. In employment law, where contracts are fairly common, the laws would be virtually meaningless if contracts took precedence. In the case of independent contractor status vs. employee status, California law does not consider someone to be an independent contractor just because their contract says so. "Independent contractor" is defined in California law to be any person who renders service for a specified recompense for a specified result, under the control of his principal as to the result of his work only and not as to the means by which such result is accomplished. (California Labor Code, section 3353) If this definition isn't satisfied, it's irrelevant what the parties agree the status is; it's not an independent contractor status. According to the state department of labor, the test is that found in Borello v. Dept. of Industrial Relations (a California Supreme Court case), which lays out a multifactor test for contractor status and says that The label placed by the parties on their relationship is not dispositive, and subterfuges are not countenanced. Likewise, with product liability, a country can generally have laws mandating liability for people providing a product or service; the extent to which this happens depends on the jurisdiction. For instance, India may not want a big company like Uber to be able to block liability claims by putting some legalese in front of average consumers who aren't able to make a detailed risk-benefit analysis. Alternatively, India could decide that Uber is better able to take the risk from bad drivers than average consumers are, so the right policy is to assign the risk to Uber. Whether Uber should be able to avoid liability is something that every country can decide for itself based on public policy considerations; the point is that if they do decide that Uber should be liable for damages, their law trumps Uber's contract. Uber actually tries to limit liability in their EULA, and to avoid an employer-employee relationship in their driver agreement. Their US EULA and driver agreement says they aren't a transportation provider and you aren't getting transportation from them, and even if you are they aren't liable for damages. However, if that provision violates the law in some state, the provision is invalid. Likewise, if they claim it's not an employment contract but it meets the "employee" definition in some state, it's an employment contract.
As seen here, the laws of the employee's state and city are controlling, and not that of the employer. A person working for a North Dakota company in Seattle is owed at least Seattle minimum wage. This to &quot;were the employee usually is working&quot; so it does not suddenly switch when the employee takes a working vacation.
Yes. Contracts do not excuse a site from obeying the law, and the law requires sites to obey court orders. "It violates my contract with a third party" is not a valid reason to disobey a court, and disobeying a court order is contempt. On the other hand, contract law (at least in the U.S. and U.K.) says that contracts that violate the law or public policy are invalid, and so you could not win a breach of contract suit if the defendant could not legally comply with the contract. Now, a contract might require the company to attempt all possible legal ways to get the court to revoke its order, or to avoid the order in the first place (for instance, if Google does no business in China, a U.S. court might not excuse them from a contract because they capitulated to the Chinese government). However, when push comes to shove, private contracts are lower priority than court orders.