If a federal law caused a breach of contract, then how can the claim not need mention the federal law? Source: pp 229-230, Thinking Like a Lawyer: An Introduction to Legal Reasoning (2010, 2 ed) by Kenneth J. Vandevelde. The statute granting federal question jurisdiction to the district courts has been limited by a judicially created rule known as the “well-pleaded complaint” rule.19 Under this rule, the federal question must be a necessary part of the plaintiff ’s complaint. That is, a federal question raised by a defense does not bring the case within federal subject matter jurisdiction. For example, assume that a retail store sues a manufacturer for breach of contract because the manufacturer failed to ship some toys that the retail store had ordered. The manufacturer raises as its sole defense the fact that after the order was placed, the federal government issued regulations banning this type of toy. Although the result in the case may well depend on an interpretation or application of the federal toy regulation, that federal law was raised as part of a defense and not as a necessary part of the plaintiff ’s claim. The plaintiff ’s claim was for breach of contract and could be set forth in its entirety without ever mentioning the toy regulation. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the court probably would not have federal question jurisdiction over the retailer’s claim. 19 See Louisville &amp; Nashville Railroad Company v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908). [OP: I have already read this case.] How is the bolded possible and realistic? Surely the plaintiff's counsel would expect and then anticipate the defendant's attempt to exculpate the defendant by deflecting all liability onto the federal government's law that bans the toys? Then: The plaintiff would have engaged federal law in his cause of action. The plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract needs to mention the toy regulation.
In simple terms, the only basis for the complaint is that the defendant did not ship the toys, not that the defendant violated federal law by their actions. No federal law mandates the shipping of toys, whether banned or unbanned.
First-class mail is acceptable for many different kinds of delivery in legal contexts. It is often not sufficient for service of a summons or subpoena, as noted in the other answer. But I don't think any of that is relevant, because you're dealing with a product recall, not legal service. This is almost certainly a voluntary recall, as mandatory recalls are very rare. If that is the case, I don't know of any law that requires a notice to be made in any particular way whatsoever. Instead, the Consumer Products Safety Commission has broad guidelines (see page 18) for how a company may consider communicating the fact of a recall, and they include many mechanisms that are even less verifiable than first class-mail: a joint news release from CPSC and the company ... information on company external websites ... a national news conference and/or television or radio announcements; use of a firm’s social media presence to notify consumers of the recall, including Facebook, Google +, YouTube, Twitter, Flickr, Pinterest, company blogger networks, and blog announcements ... And so on. I don't have that much experience with consumer-protection law, but I'd be surprised if it imposed any obligation to send certified mail or anything more certain than first-class mail. Separate from the recall requirements, though, it may be that a contract with a dealership or the warranty provides some other requirements.
That is a bit of queer provision. I'm not going to answer your first question because I think that it is a gray area with no definitive answer. In answer to your second question, my strong suspicion is that it is drafted in the shadow of a particular state consumer protection act. An arbitration clause is allowed to change your procedural rights, but cannot change substantive rights that cannot be waived by a pre-dispute contractual agreement. If it does that, it is void and you can go to court instead of an arbitration forum. Many consumer protection laws provide that a prevailing party is entitled to minimum statutory damages in lieu of actual damages if they are smaller, in addition to your reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs if you prevail. This is done to make it economically viable for private citizens to sue over violations of the consumer protection law that would otherwise involve actual damages too small to be worth suing over, without having to bring a class action. If the relevant consumer protection law has a minimum $5,000 statutory damages amount for some claims covered by the clause, this clause would prevent it from being invalidated, while allowing the merchant to still have access to the consumer unfriendly arbitration forum in which class action lawsuits are probably also barred while class action lawsuits would not be in court. For a big merchant, it is far better to have to pay $5,000 and attorneys' fees to the handful of people who bring arbitrations and win them, than to lose a single class action lawsuit for millions of dollars.
Amazon and most similar vendors (e.g. Wal-Mart) requires vendors to warrant to them that the products sold do not violate intellectual property laws and indemnifying Amazon for any harm it suffers if the representation is inaccurate. (I came to learn this in intellectual property litigation involving a Wal-Mart supplier and in separate patent infringement attorney malpractice litigation involving other vendors of different firms.) But it doesn't generally do any independent due diligence to confirm that these representations are true. As a practical matter, determining if something infringes any existing patent is a non-trivial matter, and even in cases where patent infringement lawsuits are brought by lawyers in court who have done due diligence, the validity of the patent is upheld in only about 50% of the cases that go to trial. The basic problem is that there is no definitive way to index patents that isn't vulnerable to an invention which is infringed being described in a different way than you are conceptualizing it for your search. Generally speaking, simply buying a patent infringing good as an end user in the good faith belief that it is not infringing is not a violation of patent law or actionable, and the knowledge that large firms require representations with legal consequences from their vendors probably suffices to show good faith. But if you plan to use the purchased good in some product that will be resold to others that incorporates it, that might be an infringement. If you are a prospective vendor, there are firms that specifically do patent searchers to determine if there is an infringement, but they aren't cheap. Typically the fee would start at $5,000-$10,000 and go up from there, and typically that is for a non-guaranteed search. An opinion letter from a patent practitioner would be necessary to be really sure (assuming that the patent practitioner or non-patent practitioner search doesn't find a clear infringement which could happen quickly and be cheap by comparison) and that would be much more expensive, maybe $25,000-$100,000, if it wasn't a particularly close case. On the other hand, if what you are primarily concerned about is the design of the bit that plugs into the Apple product, rather than all aspects of the product, it is a relatively trivial matter to determine if the connector involves an industry standard which is either in the public domain or widely available for license at a modest price for manufacturers, in which Apple does not itself claim a patent, or a proprietary design, in which Apple claims rights. USB-C connections, for example, are an industry standard connector, discussed here, which would give you some further leads. In contrast, earlier Apple-promoted (and developed) Lightning and MagSafe connectors, are proprietary connectors, which would potentially be infringing and would require more analysis.
could a case be made for breach of fiduciary duty? Yes, I think, although not every person or stakeholder would have standing to sue the board of trustees of the private university. The prima facie elements of breach of fiduciary duty are "(i) the existence of a fiduciary duty; (ii) a knowing breach of that duty; and (iii) damages resulting therefrom", Johnson v. Nextel Communications, 660 F.3d 131, 138 (2011) (I am not aware of any material differences in other jurisdictions). Absent any explicit disclaimers of fiduciary duty, (1) the element of existence of that duty is applicable because the trustees' relation with the university is not one of arms length; (2) in their deliberate --rather than negligent-- decision to do business with their friends, the trustees are knowingly and intentionally disregarding the advice from economists of the university, despite the evidenced financial detriment of that deliberate decision; and (3) the element of damages would be proved from the expenses as billed by the firm, coupled with any losses the friends' subpar performance may be causing to the university.
LegalZoom did not get it wrong. The case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was under Colorado law (hence it was against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission), not federal law. LZ stated that 20 states have enacted laws against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and Colorado is one of those states. The issue was heard by SCOTUS because the plaintiff raised claims under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, hence he could make a federal case of it. A prior case (Azucar Bakery) cited by LZ was about refusing to make a cake with anti-gay slogans, and was decided by the commission. Here is a brief filed by that plaintiff in that and two related cases, arguing a pattern of religious discrmination. LZ got it mildly wrong in saying "the court ruled that this was not discrimination because...", because the case did not go to court, it ended at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The second case appears to refer to Charge No. CP2018011310 a complaint filed against Masterpiece, where the same commission found probable cause for an anti-discrimination proceeding. In that proceeding, the Colorado Civil Rights Division finds that complainant Scardina "adequately shows that the Respondent's reason is pretext". This led to a complaint against the commission in US District Court (Civil Action No. 18-cv-02074-WYD-STV). There was a motion to dismiss which had partial success, but which was not about the substance of the case (it had to do with immunity, standing, abstention doctrines). The case was later dismissed, because the parties settled. So at no point did a court rule on the substance of the "pretext" issue – on this point, I think LZ overstated the significance of the commission's decision.
No While you can be bound to terms you had the opportunity to read and didn’t, you cannot be bound to terms that you did not have the opportunity to read. That doesn’t mean that you don’t have a contract but it will be on different conditions to those in the undisclosed terms. For a contract to be valid, the parties must agree on the essential terms, for a phone contract, what service the phone company is giving and how much the consumer pays. Incidental terms can be left undefined and they will, if needed, be filled in by a court with reasonable terms. However, this only happens to the extent necessary to give effect to the primary purpose of the contract. For example, late fees or termination fees are not strictly necessary (common law principles of damages for breach of contract work just fine) so, if the undisclosed terms include them, they will be unenforceable. Notwithstanding, it’s quite likely that refusing to disclose in the advance violates state or Federal consumer protection laws against misleading or deceptive conduct.
Possibly I am Australian so I am not familiar with Albertan labour law but I have done a little research and the underlying common law principles are similar. I will assume that you are covered by Albertan law and not the Canada Labour Code. The next part of the answer is based on A Guide to Rights and Responsibilities in Alberta Workplaces. First, if you lost it they would need to ask you to pay for it, they could not deduct it from your pay without a garnishee order (p. 10). Second, if the device is safety equipment, and it is certainly arguable that it is, then it is the employee's responsibility to use it and the employer's responsibility to keep it in safe working order; this would include replacing it if it were lost (p. 12). The common law position depends on a) the contract and b) if any negligence were involved. Contract What does your current employment contract say about your use of the employer's equipment generally and this item in particular? If it says something then, unless it is an illegal term, that is what happens. If it is silent, then it turns on the particular circumstances. Also, a contract cannot be changed unilaterally, if they are trying to introduce a new term then you have to agree to it; remembering that there may be consequences to taking a stand against your employer, you should say that you do not agree - this removes the risk that the employer could argue that there was tacit agreement. Negligence In order to establish negligence as a Cause of Action under the law of torts, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, as an employee this is virtually a given; breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the standard of a reasonable person), this would depend on the circumstances of the loss or damage. You have to take reasonable care of the equipment - this is not a subjective standard, you need to do everything that a person in your position can do to protect the equipment from loss or damage; the negligent conduct was, in law, the cause of the harm to the plaintiff. This has to do with the "proximity" of the harm, if for example the device needed a battery change and you took it to a technician who damaged the item in changing the battery then your actions are not proximate to the loss; and the plaintiff was, in fact, harmed or damaged. Well, if it is lost or damaged this is pretty unarguable. So, if you take reasonable care of the device and, notwithstanding, it is lost or damaged then you would not be liable for negligence ... probably. Talk to your union rep; this is exactly the sort of stuff that they are there to sort out.