As Agreed Hello, I have a business law assignment (LPP225) due later in the day tomorrow (2/23), so I would need this completed by 12noon tomorrow. I am willing to pay a good amount of money to get it completed with a grade of B- or above. Length requirement is 4-5 pages double spaced. Please let me know ASAP if you can help me. LPP 255 (Spring 2016) Writing Assignment 1 Professor Karen Kukla Homeless Hounds is a New York not-for-profit charitable corporation that places rescue and shelter dogs in loving homes. The organization grew out of its founder’s desire to save dogs destined for euthanasia in Southern shelters. Operating out of a single location in Oneida County, HH arranges for the transport of dogs from North Carolina and Tennessee to New York. Prior to their arrival, the dogs are given vaccinations, spayed or neutered and tested for heartworm disease. Behavioral tests are occasionally performed, but are rarely documented. Once in New York, the dogs are advertised for adoption via the HH website and its Facebook page. Adoptions cannot be finalized on-line, although applications can be completed and transmitted through the website, which also accepts donations via PayPal. Kimberly Stevens is a New Hampshire resident with a four year old son who regularly checked the HH website and followed the organization on Facebook. Kimberly was an animal lover who had become intrigued by the HH business model; she had also made a couple of small donations to the charity via its website. One morning, as Kimberly viewed the list of new adoptable dogs on the HH homepage, she saw a beagle named Buddy and immediately fell in love. Kimberly clicked on the “Adoption Application” button and proceeded to fill out the on-line form, which she then transmitted to HH electronically. Several days later, Kimberly was notified via email that her application had been approved. She was instructed to contact HH and make arrangements to meet Buddy. If all went well, she would be free to take him back to Pennsylvania. Thrilled about the prospect of a new family member, Kimberly and her son made the four hour drive from their home to Oneida County the following Saturday. They met Buddy, who greeted them with a wagging tail and lots of excitement. Kimberly asked one of the rescue’s volunteers about Buddy’s temperament and disposition. She was told Buddy was a great dog and that “he got along well with children.” And the HH volunteer also said she would not hesitate “to leave Buddy alone with her own toddler.” Satisfied that she had picked the perfect dog, Kimberly paid the $300 adoption fee, put a new collar on Buddy and proceeded to secure him and her son in the car for the drive back to New Hampshire. All was wonderful when Buddy arrived at his new home. Kimberly was happy to learn that Buddy was housebroken. He adjusted well to his new environment, rarely barked and seemed to really enjoy playing with Kimberly’s son. Early one morning, Kimberly decided to leave Bud.

1. As Agreed
Hello, I have a business law assignment (LPP225) due later in
the day tomorrow (2/23), so I would need this completed by
12noon tomorrow. I am willing to pay a good amount of money
to get it completed with a grade of B- or above. Length
requirement is 4-5 pages double spaced. Please let me know
ASAP if you can help me.
LPP 255 (Spring 2016)
Writing Assignment 1
Professor Karen Kukla
Homeless Hounds is a New York not-for-profit charitable
corporation that places rescue and shelter dogs in loving homes.
The organization grew out of its founder’s desire to save dogs
destined for euthanasia in Southern shelters. Operating out of a
single location in Oneida County, HH arranges for the transport
of dogs from North Carolina and Tennessee to New York. Prior
to their arrival, the dogs are given vaccinations, spayed or
neutered and tested for heartworm disease. Behavioral tests are
occasionally performed, but are rarely documented. Once in
New York, the dogs are advertised for adoption via the HH
website and its Facebook page. Adoptions cannot be finalized
on-line, although applications can be completed and transmitted
through the website, which also accepts donations via PayPal.
Kimberly Stevens is a New Hampshire resident with a four year
old son who regularly checked the HH website and followed the
organization on Facebook. Kimberly was an animal lover who
had become intrigued by the HH business model; she had also
made a couple of small donations to the charity via its website.
One morning, as Kimberly viewed the list of new adoptable
dogs on the HH homepage, she saw a beagle named Buddy and
immediately fell in love. Kimberly clicked on the “Adoption
Application” button and proceeded to fill out the on-line form,
which she then transmitted to HH electronically.

2. Several days later, Kimberly was notified via email that her
application had been approved. She was instructed to contact
HH and make arrangements to meet Buddy. If all went well, she
would be free to take him back to Pennsylvania. Thrilled about
the prospect of a new family member, Kimberly and her son
made the four hour drive from their home to Oneida County the
following Saturday. They met Buddy, who greeted them with a
wagging tail and lots of excitement. Kimberly asked one of the
rescue’s volunteers about Buddy’s temperament and disposition.
She was told Buddy was a great dog and that “he got along well
with children.” And the HH volunteer also said she would not
hesitate “to leave Buddy alone with her own toddler.” Satisfied
that she had picked the perfect dog, Kimberly paid the $300
adoption fee, put a new collar on Buddy and proceeded to
secure him and her son in the car for the drive back to New
Hampshire.
All was wonderful when Buddy arrived at his new home.
Kimberly was happy to learn that Buddy was housebroken. He
adjusted well to his new environment, rarely barked and seemed
to really enjoy playing with Kimberly’s son. Early one morning,
Kimberly decided to leave Buddy and her boy in the family
room while she took a quick shower. Kimberly was upstairs
getting dressed when she heard horrible screams coming.
Kimberly rushed downstairs and found Buddy attacking her
child, who was bleeding horribly from his face and hands. The
boy was holding the dog’s tail, twisting and pulling it while
Buddy howled in pain and kept trying to bite the boy. Kimberly
eventually separated them, but not before her son was badly
injured. He required extensive medical care, including multiple
plastic surgeries.
On behalf of herself and her son, Kimberly brought suit against
Homeless Hounds in New Hampshire, alleging fraud, false
advertising, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional
distress. The complaint seeks damages of $250,000. Homeless
Hounds has filed an answer denying the allegations and asking
for dismissal, claiming the New Hampshire court does not have

3. in personam
jurisdiction. How should the New Hampshire court rule on the
dismissal request?
This is intended to be a "closed universe" assignment - With the
exception of the U.S. Constitution,
Southern Prestige
(posted on Blackboard) and
International Shoe
, authority for your response can be found below. I have not
reprinted the entire text of these decisions; just brief, relevant
summaries. You are, of course, free to use other parts of these
decisions (or other cases) and the textbook in your analysis as
you deem appropriate. You may collaborate with
one
classmate; please make sure both your names are on the paper.
We will discuss the "Questions Presented" or the
"Issues" in class on Wednesday, February 17th and Thursday,
February 18th. I will also take any other non-substantive
questions at that time. I will have no further comments on this
assignment before it is due, as addressing individual
questions/drafts would be unfair to those who do not approach
me.
Due Dates:
Section M008 (M&W) - February 24
th
Section M011 (T&TH) - February 23rd.
Relevant Long-Arm Statute
Personal jurisdiction by acts of nonresidents.
(a) The term “person” in this section includes any natural
person, association, partnership or corporation.
(b) The following acts constitute legal presence within the
State. Any person who commits any of the acts hereinafter
enumerated thereby submits to the jurisdiction of the Delaware

4. courts and is deemed thereby to have appointed and constituted
the Secretary of State of this State the person’s agent for the
acceptance of legal process in any civil action against such
nonresident person arising from the following enumerated acts.
The acceptance shall be an acknowledgement of the agreement
of such nonresident that any process when so served shall have
the same legal force and validity as if served upon such
nonresident personally within the State, and that such
appointment of the Secretary of State shall be irrevocable and
binding upon the personal representative.
(c) As to a cause of action brought by any person arising from
any of the acts enumerated in this section, a court may exercise
personal jurisdiction over any nonresident, or a personal
representative, who in person or through an agent:
(1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or
service in the State;
(2) Contracts to supply services or things in this State;
(3) Causes tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in
this State;
(4) Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by
an act or omission outside the State if the person regularly does
or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of
conduct in the State or derives substantial revenue from
services, or things used or consumed in the State. * * *
Inset Systems, Inc. v. Instruction Set
, 937 F.Supp. 161 (D. Conn. 1996)
Inset Systems claimed that Instruction Set's website made an
infringing use of Inset's registered trademark.
The Connecticut long arm statute allows for out of state
corporations to be sued by residents of Connecticut as long as
the out of state corporation has conducted repeated solicitation
for business in Connecticut “by mail or otherwise.” The court
held that this standard was met by Instruction Set's Internet

5. presence, which it found to be at least as much of a case of
solicitation as advertising through hard copy mailers and
catalogs. The court also found there to be sufficient minimum
contacts because Instruction Set should have realized that their
nationally available phone number and Internet site could reach
potential customers in Connecticut.
Holding:
Solicitation by advertising through an Internet website is
enough to establish minimum contacts anywhere.
Note:
Other courts have since distanced themselves from this
concept.
Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc.
, 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997)
In
Zippo Manufacturing v. Zippo Dot Com
, the court considered state and federal trademark infringement
and trademark dilution claims.
The plaintiff was Zippo Manufacturing, famous for their
lighters. The defendant, Zippo Dot Com, operated a web portal
and news service out of California. Dot Com offered three
levels of service, the upper two of which required registration
with the website and a payment of monthly fees. Dot Com had
approximately 3,000 subscribers in Pennsylvania at the time the
suit was commenced.
The Pennsylvania long arm statute allowed the court to exercise
personal jurisdiction for claims arising out of contracts to
supply services in the state. The court found that Dot Com had
contracts with the 3,000 subscribers and with seven
Pennsylvania ISPs. Since Dot Com's website, unlike that in
CyberGold, was an active website, garnering money from
people in the state where they were being sued, the court held
that it could properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the
defendant. The court also applied the three part
International Shoe

6. test, finding that it could also exercise jurisdiction under that
standard.
Holding:
A passive webpage is insufficient to establish personal
jurisdiction, but an interactive site through which a defendant
conducts business with forum residents, such as Zippo Dot
Com's, is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction.
Bensusan Restaurant Corp. v. King
, 126 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 1997)
In this case, Bensusan Restaurant Corp. claimed that King was
infringing on Bensusan's registered trademark "The Blue Note",
the name of Bensusan's successful jazz club in New York City,
when he created a website for his Missouri club, also called The
Blue Note.
New York law allows a non-resident who does not transact
business in New York to be sued if the non-resident has
committed a tortious act within the state of New York. Since
King's website was created by a person physically in Missouri,
there was no tortious act in New York and the court held that
there was no personal jurisdiction over King.
New York law also allows jurisdiction over non-residents that
have caused an injury in the state even if the tortious act was
committed outside. However, this is limited to people who
should have reasonably expected the act to have consequences
in the state, and who derive substantial revenue from interstate
commerce, something the court held was not shown here.
Holding:
an allegedly trademark-infringing website alone is not
sufficient for personal jurisdiction where the website was
created by someone physically located in another state.
Boschetto v. Hansing
, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008)
Plaintiff Boschetto, a resident of California, purchased a
vintage car through eBay from defendant car dealership in
Wisconsin. Upon receiving the car, plaintiff discovered many

7. problems with the car which were counter to how the defendant
described it. After failing to resolve the issue through eBay,
plaintiff brought suit against the defendant in the State of
California. The court applied a three-part test for establishing
minimum contacts: (1) purposeful direction of activities toward
the forum, (2) a claim arising out of or related to defendant's
forum related activities, and (3) reasonableness, fair-play, and
substantial justice.
Holding:
The court ruled that the lone transaction for the sale of one
item did not establish purposeful availment.
Huggins v. Boyd, Georgia Court of Appeals 2010 (304 Ga. App.
563)
In this case involving a permanent protective order prohibiting
Jonathan Huggins from stalking Karen Boyd, Huggins appealed
the trial court's denial of his motion to set aside the order,
arguing that the trial court had no personal jurisdiction over
him. Because it was undisputed that Huggins (a South Carolina
resident) engaged in the stalking conduct (sending e-mails) only
outside Georgia, and because it was further undisputed that
Huggins engaged in no other conduct (persistent or otherwise)
in Georgia, the protective order was reversed.