Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (650,000)
York (40,000)
ADMS (3,000)
ADMS 2610 (400)
Lecture 8

ADMS 2610 Lecture Notes - Lecture 8: Resale Price Maintenance, Bid Rigging, Wrongful Dismissal


Department
Administrative Studies
Course Code
ADMS 2610
Professor
Robert Levine
Lecture
8

This preview shows page 1. to view the full 4 pages of the document.
Inellectual property Questions:
Copyright. Damages of the section of the act. Plus Injunction.
A can sue for damages of infringement of the contract and seek injunction (not
sure).
Common law trademark. Sue for the damages for the tort of passing o". Plus sue
for injunction. Statutory for infringement.
Register the patent and its good for 20 years. Patent act of Canada. From the date
of application.
Employer becomes the inventor and the owner of the patent.
Iturant Sale. Consumer protection act of Ontario. Under consumer protection
legislation, B has a 10 day cooling o" period to resent back the contract as long as
she provides a written notice to the company. And then return back the camera
back to the company, and get her money back.
Bid rigging. Illegal. According to competition act, bid rigging is a prohibited o"ence.
There is an agreement between the contractors themselves which is illegal.Fines up
10,000 or imprisonment 5 year jail. They can escape if they can prove due
diligence.
Price maintenance. Under competition act, resale price maintenance is a criminal
o"ence. Manufactures can only suggest a retail price. It cannot threaten to penalize
a dealer a dealer for selling for less.
It is not price discrimination. As long as bbg can argue that its intention was not to
get hh hats out of business, it is a fair practice. And bbg is not selling drastically
lower than the other company. This constitutes as price discrimination under
competition act and it’s a criminal o"ence. There is 5 dollar di"erence.
The company is strictly liable for the pollution. They committed criminal o"ence.
Remedy against the company are damages for the cost of clean up. Also, directors
are personally liable unless if they can prove that they have due diligence. In this
case, they can cuz they have 4 reasons to prove due diligence: 1- hired engineers 2-
they send memos 3- they had meetings 4- they spoke to the engineers 5- they
went to the site (see question for the 5 facts)
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Employment law question:
Not its not wrongful dismissal.
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version