This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by professional essay writers.
Uncategorized

Hammerhead Sports Equipment Corp., plaintiff v. DuroSafe Helmets, Inc., defendant

Pssst… we can write an original essay just for you.

Any subject. Any type of essay. We’ll even meet a 3-hour deadline.

GET YOUR PRICE

writers online

Hammerhead Sports Equipment Corp., plaintiff v. DuroSafe Helmets, Inc., defendant

In this civil action, there are two motions; one is from the plaintiff asking for summary judgment against the counterclaims by the defendants due to deceptive trade activities and false advertising. The other motion is to strike the expert testimony presented by the defendant in relation to the claims. In my opinion, the motion for summary judgment should be granted since it is evident that the defendant failed to show even a single false statement or identify damages caused by the plaintiff’s advertisements. Besides, I would reject the plaintiff’s motion to strike the expert testimony as unworthy.

Undisputed facts can be drawn from the presented claims and the record. In the process, many facts by the parties can be disregarded, for reasons that some of the facts are unnecessary in resolving the disputes between parties, or the cited evidence is contrary to the proposed facts. However, there is a key fact worth proposed by the defendant that is worth mentioning. This pertains to the defendant’s testimony submission of Jane Fondue, Vice President of Team Sales. Fondue explains in general terms how her conversation with prospective customers and sales representatives went whereby the customers expressed that the DuroSafe’s HeadSmart HS helmet was a “concussion helmet” and “would not purchase [defendant’s] helmets because the HeadSmart helmet was proven to reduce and prevent concussions.”

Nonetheless, Fondue fails to identify a specific discussion with prospective customers. Besides, her reference to the sales reps and customers is unclear since she cannot show which statements came from the sales agents and which ones were relayed by the customers. She only mentions once that the customers “told him”. As per the Plaintiff, these statements are unclear and blurred to be admissible. As stated in Cf. Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. v. Ameron, Inc., 7 F.3d 1327, 1330-31 (7th Cir.1993), a customer’s evidence that does not have specific on a given discussion is inadmissible hearsay. For this reason, the decision is to grant the motion for summary judgment on the defendant’s counterclaims for deceptive business practices and false advertising. Likewise, the expert testimony of Fondue is denied as unnecessary.

 

 

Works Cited

Cf. Smith Fiberglass Products, Inc. v. Ameron, Inc., 7 F.3d 1327, 1330-31 (7th Cir.1993)

  Remember! This is just a sample.

Save time and get your custom paper from our expert writers

 Get started in just 3 minutes
 Sit back relax and leave the writing to us
 Sources and citations are provided
 100% Plagiarism free
error: Content is protected !!
×
Hi, my name is Jenn 👋

In case you can’t find a sample example, our professional writers are ready to help you with writing your own paper. All you need to do is fill out a short form and submit an order

Check Out the Form
Need Help?
Dont be shy to ask