Torts-Negligent Misrepresentation-Abolition of the Privity Requirement

Defendants, professional consulting engineers, contracted with the city of Chattanooga to design a sewage system. As part of their performance of the contract they prepared a report of geological conditions which was to be distributed by the city to prospective bidders. Plaintiff, a tunneling subcontractor, had no dealings with the defendants, but did rely on their report in making its bid. Because one of defendant\u27s draftsmen carelessly omitted pertinent geological information from the report, it took plaintiff three weeks longer to complete the work than had been anticipated. Plaintiff sued defendant for damages for misrepresentation; held, plaintiff may recover. A person who makes a material and negligent misrepresentation in the course of a business transaction is liable for injuries suffered because of justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by any member of that class of persons whose reliance was reasonably foreseeable. Texas Tunneling Co. v. City of Chattanooga, 204 F. Supp. 821 (E.D. Tenn. 1962)

SDI and the ABM Treaty: Problems of Negotiation and Interpretation

The ABM Treaty is at least confusing and ambiguous on the core question of whether it applies only to traditional ABM systems. Although it is certainly correct to state that Agreed Statement D did not amend the treaty, it is equally clear that a treaty is to be interpreted in light of any agreement relating to it that is made by the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty. On the basis of this principal, and the established principle that all related parts of an agreement must be read together to give meaning and consistency to the whole, analysis based on the entire text and the public record militates in favor of a conclusion that the ABM Treaty prohibits deployment but not research, development, or testing of space-based BMD weapons based on new physical principles, such as SDI weapons

Corporations-Officers and Directors-Liability for Representative Acts Under the Sherman Act

An indictment brought under section 1 of the Sherman Act charged appellee and the corporation that employed him with conspiracy to eliminate price competition in the greater Kansas City milk market. Appellee was charged solely, in his capacity as officer, director or agent of the corporation. The district court dismissed the indictment on the ground that natural persons are indictable under section 1 of the Sherman Act only for acts done on their own account. On direct appeal to the Supreme Court, held, reversed and remanded. A corporate officer is liable under section 1 of the Sherman Act whether he acted on his own account or solely in a representative capacity. United States v. Wise, 370 U.S. 405 (1962)

ERISA Preemption: Judicial Flexibility and Statutory Rigidity

This Article attempts to describe the ways in which, and the reasons why section 514(a) has caused the courts and Congress so much difficulty. Part I reviews the legislative history of section 514(a), with emphasis on the ambivalence Congress has shown toward its 1974 draftsmanship. Part II attempts to provide a coherent description of the case law that has developed under section 514(a). Part III completes the legislative history by examining the two instances in which experience compelled Congress to revise section 514. Finally, Part IV discusses examples of problems courts have faced when crafting a federal common law of employee benefits in light of section 514 and concludes that the peculiar absence in section 514 of any recognition of state policies has had an adverse effect on the common law process. The primary shortcoming of section 514 is that, although it establishes a good starting point for thinking about ERISA preemption, it falls short both as a practical rule and as a guide to principled decisionmaking. Courts have thus had little choice but to create a federal common law of ERISA, including preemption, in spite of, and to some extent hindered by, the literal language of the statute

The fitness for the Ageing Brain Study II (FABS II): protocol for a randomized controlled clinical trial evaluating the effect of physical activity on cognitive function in patients with Alzheimer's disease

Background: Observational studies have documented a potential protective effect of physical exercise in older adults who are at risk for developing Alzheimer's disease. The Fitness for the Ageing Brain II (FABS II) study is a multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) aiming to determine whether physical activity reduces the rate of cognitive decline among individuals with Alzheimer's disease. This paper describes the background, objectives of the study, and an overview of the protocol including design, organization and data collection methods

Torts-Negligent Misrepresentation-Abolition of the Privity Requirement

Defendants, professional consulting engineers, contracted with the city of Chattanooga to design a sewage system. As part of their performance of the contract they prepared a report of geological conditions which was to be distributed by the city to prospective bidders. Plaintiff, a tunneling subcontractor, had no dealings with the defendants, but did rely on their report in making its bid. Because one of defendant\u27s draftsmen carelessly omitted pertinent geological information from the report, it took plaintiff three weeks longer to complete the work than had been anticipated. Plaintiff sued defendant for damages for misrepresentation; held, plaintiff may recover. A person who makes a material and negligent misrepresentation in the course of a business transaction is liable for injuries suffered because of justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation by any member of that class of persons whose reliance was reasonably foreseeable. Texas Tunneling Co. v. City of Chattanooga, 204 F. Supp. 821 (E.D. Tenn. 1962)

SDI and the ABM Treaty: Problems of Negotiation and Interpretation

The ABM Treaty is at least confusing and ambiguous on the core question of whether it applies only to traditional ABM systems. Although it is certainly correct to state that Agreed Statement D did not amend the treaty, it is equally clear that a treaty is to be interpreted in light of any agreement relating to it that is made by the parties in connection with the conclusion of the treaty. On the basis of this principal, and the established principle that all related parts of an agreement must be read together to give meaning and consistency to the whole, analysis based on the entire text and the public record militates in favor of a conclusion that the ABM Treaty prohibits deployment but not research, development, or testing of space-based BMD weapons based on new physical principles, such as SDI weapons