discussion and 2 student responses

The UGAA claimed that the cans infringed its symbol for its athletic teams. The symbol, which depicted an English Bulldog wearing a sweater with a G and the word BULLDOGS on it, had been registered as a service mark. Soon after the beer appeared on the market, the university received telephone calls from friends of the university who were concerned that Battlin’ Bulldog Beer was not the sort of product that should in any way be related to the University of Georgia. The university’s suit was based on the theory of false designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act. Laite contended that there was no likelihood of confusion because his bulldog was different from the university’s and his cans bore the disclaimer “Not associated with the University of Georgia.” Decide. (Pg. 216)
This assignment supports student learning objectives:
Discuss the general principles of legality and public policy—describe with examples—agreements affecting public welfare and the characteristics of regulation of business.
Discuss the elements of breach of contract and remedies—what constitutes breach, waiver of breach, remedies of breach and contract provisions affecting remedies and damages.
Be able to define and fully explain case studies in complete detail
2. please respond to two student responses below. (Gail drove her automobile after having had dinner and several drinks. She fell asleep at the wheel and ran over and killed a pedestrian. Prosecuted for manslaughter, she raised the defense that she did not intend to hurt anyone and because of the drinks, did not know what she was doing. Was this a valid defense? (Pg. 168)
Joe NyeNo, it’s not a valid defense, because it’s illegal to drive after drinking alcohol or taking drugs, so she was breaking this law of DUI. And this crime of hers resulted in her crashing into and killing a pedestrian, which are aggregating factors to the crime of DUI, as negligence on her part that she did the risky behavior of endangering other people with her impaired driving. She would have to offer a defense for the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol, maybe at the least something like that she thought that enough time had passed after drinking for the alcohol to have left her system, as poor judgement and thinking then that she was not committing the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol at the time that she was driving. And if she claims that she didn’t know that it is illegal to drive under the influence of alcohol, this would not be recognized as a legal defense because the law prohibiting DUI is old so it would be assumed that she was aware of this law: “Ignorance can become and remain a valid defense until the law is no longer new and most citizens are aware of the changes” (Ignorance of the Law – When Is It a Valid Defense? – HG.org (Links to an external site.)).
Dawn ParksI do not believe that Gail’s defense is valid. While she did not intend to hurt anyone, she still consumed alcohol and drove which is against the law. Driving under the influence, also known as a DUI is the law put in place that Gail broke. Her carelessness led to her driving under the influence, which also in turn led to manslaughter. Manslaughter is the charge related to killing another person in an unintentional manner. This could have been avoided had Gail not drove her car after consuming alcohol. While there are other stances of defense that could have been presented, stating that one did not intend to harm someone else is not a good enough reasoning. Laws put into place for DUIs and manslaughter are there to protect the general public, while also presenting an ethical stance. It is both legally and morally wrong to drink and drive and to intentionally or unintentionally kill someone. While accidents can and do happen, the blame of this situation falls on Gail for her negligent behavior when she chose to drink and drive.