Civil Litigation Concepts

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Civil Litigation Concepts
Question 1
In McVerry v. Charash case, the plaintiff began action against the defendant on May 29, 2001, for medical malpractice. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant, David Charash, who worked in an emergency room as a physician negligently, caused the death of Marcos Martinez by failing to diagnose and treat on time an allergic reaction caused by the hospital prescribed drug. The plaintiff was not a medical practitioner, and so, by law, was precluded from giving expert testimony in courts of law. The case dragged on, and on making a ruling, the judge acquitted the defendant of any wrongdoing. The acquittal was granted on the fact that the plaintiff failed to meet the courts scheduling orders and preclusion.
In my opinion, this case was not fairly decided, and the harsh sanctions against the plaintiff are a clear indication that the court was desirous to dismiss the plaintiff’s course of action. However, the court’s process was apt in granting the defendant’s motion to preclude.
Question 2
The ProCD case seeks to answer the question as to whether software buyers should be legally bound by end-user license agreements (EULA). In the ProCD case, Mathew Zeindeberg bought an iPhone and ignored the EULA and decided to profit from using the phone in a prohibited manner illegally. ProCD sued. However, the district magistrate ruled in favor of the defendant claiming that EULA is a defective contract since its contents are hidden in the package.

To this end, I concur with the District Court that buyers must not be bound by EULA since they are not express. A contract must have certain elements for it to be valid. For EULA, all elements will have been realized apart from offer and acceptance (Miller, Roger LeRoy 211).

Works Cited
McVerry v. Charash, 901 A.2d 69, 96 Conn. App. 589 (App. Ct. 2006).
Miller, Roger LeRoy. Business Law Today. South-Western Cengage Learning, 2014.
ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).