LAW 531 WEEK 3 ASSIGNMENTS

A+ Graded Tutorial Available At: http://hwsoloutions.com/?product=law-531-week-3-assignments Visit Our website: http://hwsoloutions.com/
Product Description
PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
LAW 531 Week 3 Assignments
Week Three IRAC Brief
Case:DePuy Orthopaedics, Inc. v. Waxman. August 3, 2012. In the outlined case, DePuy is trying to sue one of their distributors Joint Venture for breach of a non-compete agreement. Under the non-compete covenant Joint Venture disclaim the rights to any of DePuy intangible assets, including intellectual property (IP), goodwill, and customer lists. DePuy claims that Joint Venture breached the non-compete agreement which caused a drop in sales and damaged their relationship with customers in the territories outlined within the agreement.Therefore, the legality of the contract enforced due to the breach of the non-compete agreement. According to Cheeseman 2013, “the section 2-201(1) statue of sales contracts of Uniform Commercial Code laws help prevent fraud like this case” (p. 171). To avoid this case by Depuy or any other companies’ managerial setting must specify agreements with language that is comprehensible by both parties in written valid contracts.
Issue:Was there a breach to the contract, under that non-compete covenant between DePuy and Joint Venture? What kind of defenses do companies use to mitigate risk related to personal, real, or intellectual property (IP) issues?
The main reason this case went to court is because of the breach of non-compete agreements by Joint Venture. DePuy outlined in the Amendment Agreementthat it had retained the sole right to enforce the non-compete covenants that Joint Venture had the right to enforce (Case). This means that once Joint Venture began calling accounts in their former DePuy territories they were in breach of the Amendment Agreement, which led to the