Market monopoly exudes diverse challenges to marketplace players. This means that the presence of a sole manufacturer of definite merchandise significantly affects the buyers of such products. Evidently, certain regulations attempt to curb monopoly thus ensuring fair competition in the market. It is worth denoting that such a move eventually improves the satisfaction of consumers. Interestingly, the regulations enacted by the U.S government, which regulate the conduct of players in the market remains supreme, upon comparison with diverse regulations enacted at the state level. Further, the statutes generated at different states, when inconsistent with the US constitution such provisions shall appear defunct.
A statute arising from the state of confusion, which escalates operational costs for marketplace players, raises concerns. This is because the novel directive requires that transporters meet locally designed standards, yet the availability of service for the standards appears restricted to a single manufacturer. Tanya sets to seek justice by initiating court proceedings to overturn the statute. This paper intends to provide insights about the courts where this proceeding may occur. Furthermore, such a position exemplifies provisions in the “US constitution” that supports the statute. It equally answers the legal correctness of state of confusion with regard to their novel statute. It also responds to the concerns whether the applicant has chances of persisting in the suit and presents the stages of civil suits.
Courts Handle Tanya’s Suit
It is noteworthy to recognize that Tanya’s suit exudes aspects of marketplace monopoly that US antitrust laws forbid. The federal courts have jurisdictions in hearing this suit (Cheeseman, 2010). This is because the courts can interpret other states statutes together with federal laws. Therefore, federal courts can hear the case because it needs to determine the constitutionality of the suit through examining diverse US constitutional stipulations (Cheeseman, 2010). Further, a federal court has jurisprudence to consider this case because it involves two states. Tanya originates from state of denial while her trucks operates through state of confusion thus the case involves interstate inconsistency.
US Constitutional Provisions used by Courts Determining the Validity of the Statute Enacted by State of Confusion
The stipulations likely to be used in determining the validity of state of confusion decree entail the “interstate commerce clause” laws that state of confusion statutes appear to violate (Cheeseman, 2010). The “Sherman Act of 1890” prohibits conspiracies to control trade and monopolization. It appears the state of confusion conspired with the single manufacturer of type B hitches to control business and dominate the market. “The Federal Trade Commission Act (FTA) of 1914” can also gain use because it appears more comprehensive and diminishes loopholes created by other regulatory statutes (Cheeseman, 2010). The state of confusion statutes lacks constitutionality because it contains inconsistencies with the Sherman and FTA Acts. This is because the statutes attempt to create undesirable conditions for business by initiating a novel regulation that puts tough directives thus hampering interstate commerce.
Tanya Prevailing on her Suit
It is apparent that Tanya will likely win through the suit. The statute enacted by “state of confusion” outlaw’s certain vehicles from operating unless they install type B hitches. The statute stipulations inconsistencies with the US constitution terms hamper its applicability. Tanya argument would include suggesting the undesirable business environment state of confusion appears to create by initiating statutes inconsistent with the interstate commerce clauses. The inconsistencies entail conspiracies with the manufacturer and monopolization attempts, which violate the “Sherman Act and the FTA Act” and the interstate commerce clause (Cheeseman, 2010). These Acts prohibits the notable and unpopular provisions proposed by state of confusion. Further, courts also appear to exude jurisdictions in handling such controversial cases. Interpreting this Act at federal courts notably reveal the inconsistencies with the US constitutional regulations that emerge from the Act.
Stages of a Civil Suit
Civil law suits entail cases where individual parties wronged by others present their claims, which regularly focus on legal conflicts regarding statutory regulations based on rights. Civil suits occur under diverse stages including pleadings where plaintiffs fill their disagreements. This initial stage necessitates plaintiffs to outline the facts that avail insights into the claims denoted by diverse entities. Pleadings also entail answering where defendants gain opportunities to admit or reject knowledge of the plaintiffs’ complaints (Cheeseman, 2010). Further, defendants also avail justification for advancing the offences. Plaintiffs also prepare for counterclaims.
The next stage entails discovery where both players in the case question one another upon taking an oath before trials. Interrogations also occur where the parties ask written questions. Parties also ask for diverse documents from one another and subpoenas which include directives forcing parties participation. Third stage entails motions that determine case directions (Cheeseman, 2010). Motions include applications to discharge cases even before beginning of proceedings. Motion applications also facilitate cooperativeness in case any party rejects provision of documents. Motions enable striking a case whenever any party breaches orders and renewing past motions.
Pre trial is the fourth stage where victims develop cases and backings. These entails creating introductory and summarizing statements, establishing cross-examination tactics, and availing judge instructions. Further, this stage necessitates obtaining witnesses by all parties. Trial then follows where decisions emanate from definite truths supporting monetary wastage or significant reprieve declarations (Cheeseman, 2010). Jury trials necessitate the parties to obtain representations from juries. Additionally, personal attorneys engage in interviewing potential jurors thus ascertaining their impartiality. Post trial assignments entail a bench trial judge notifying both parties to avail post trial communications. Making appeals upon delivery of decisions by judges appears as positive options for the losing party.
In summary, it emerges that the state of confusion statutes enacted locally exudes inconsistencies with that US constitutional stipulations. The statute illustrates products of conspiracy that monopolize marketplace activities. Interestingly, the Sherman Act and the FTA appear to prohibit such uncertainties. State of confusion courts and federal courts handle these unpopular conflicts by interpreting the statutes together with the US constitutional stipulations. Evidently, stages of civil suits appear intricate with awkward tasks.
Cheeseman, H. (2010). Business Law: Legal Environment, Online Commerce, Business Ethics, and International Issues. 6th Edition. New Jersey, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.