Need a self- explanatory personal opinion, thoughts and arguments and for each of the below given four lawsuit analyses.

Case 1

A class of iPhone App store purchasers alleged that Apple created an illegal monopoly over the worldwide distribution of iPhone apps. They argued that even though Apple did not create most of the iPhone applications available on its App Store, Apple approves and distributes all available apps on its store. Apple charges a 30% commission for all apps sold through its Apps store and the consumer claimed the fees were illegally passed to them. The potential class sought damages against Apple ( for its allegedly illegal commission fee) that are available under the Clayton Act. However, Apple argued the plaintiffs were not entitled to file suit.

Conclusion:The court used the Illinois Brick doctrine to dismiss the lawsuit. It considered the purchaser of Apple's App store were indirect purchaser and no exception applied. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision. The Ninth Circuit said that the class can sue for the alleged illegal commission's Apple charges because it performs a marketplace "function" of a distributor which would allow them to avoid the bars et by Illinois Brick Doctrine. The Ninth Circuit focused on whether Apple was a "distributor" and less on whether or not the class was seeking damages on a "pass-through" theory that is not allowed under the Court's Illinois Brick Doctrine.

Case 2

Babb v. Wilkie

This cased is about age discrimination in the workplace. Norris Babb worked as a pharmacist for the Veteran Affairs Medical Center in Bay Pines, Florida. When Babb's medical center rolled out a new initiative and were interviewing for more advanced positions within the company. Pharmacy Management rejected several applications for women over fifty but accepted two of women under forty. Two of the rejected females filed Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) complaints against the company. Babb (who is over 50) helped with the entire rollout but was denied the job when she could not comply with this 'outrageous' schedule they provided. She also claimed an EEO complaint based on they gave her an unmanageable schedule to eliminate her from the position. Babb brough this complaint under r Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA).

Question: Does the ADEA that protects employees over the age of forty require the plaintiff to prove that age was the butt-for cause in her rejection of the promotion?

Conclusion: The Court decided with an 8-1 majority that this decision to complicate the job in such a way that Babb could not possibly do the job a clear offense of the ADEA. Age may not be taken into consideration is anyway. Paired with the rejection of other applicants over the age of fifty and the hiring of applicants under the age of forty, the Court made their decision.

Case 3

Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries.

John DeVries and Kenneth McAfee were both parts of the U.S. Navy for twenty-three years. They had operated different vessels within their service. The vessels were equipped with different equipment like pumps and turbines. Due to the excessive heat produced in the operation of the vessels, there was a requirement for asbestos parts or asbestos insulation to efficiently function. Inhalation or ingestion of asbestos is known to predispose an individual to various illnesses. DeVries and McAfee sued various companies following their development of cancer due to asbestos exposure. The companies they sued include; Air and Liquid Systems, Ingersoll Rand, General Electric, CBS, and Foster Wheeler (Duncan, 2019). Some of the manufacturing companies argued that their products upon delivery were pure metal and that the navy was the one adding asbestos. The companies argued that they should not be held liable for any damages caused by the addition of other components by a third party. DeVries and McAfee then argued that despite the companies delivering products as bare metal, they knew that asbestos was required in their operation. The manufactures had the responsibility to provide information on the dangers of asbestos exposure despite them not delivering it. The manufacturers gained a judgment that they should be liable for any damages caused by third parties which were remanded by the third circuit. The third circuit held the manufacturers liable to the damages arguing that the use of asbestos was predictable.

The Supreme Court held the manufacturer responsible for warning the users on the dangers of the substances required to be incorporated with their products. This was under the general maritime law. After an analysis of approaches used in the determination of the manufacturer's responsibility in warning users on dangers of their product, the third approach was held by the court which required the manufacturer to warn its users if their product requires incorporation with components that have the capability of causing harm. The court, therefore, agreed with the DeVries and McAfee claims and affirmed the judgment of the third council holding the manufacturers responsible.

Case 4

Case: Shaw V. United States

This case is about defrauding a financial institution. Stanley HSU a Taiwanese businessman who opened a Bank of America account while working in the United States. While he was going back to Taiwan, he arranged for the daughter of one of his employees to receive his mail and forward to him. But the father of the daughter who was living with his daughter he used to regularly check her email and when he revived Bank of America statements for HSU's account he concocted a scheme in which he opened a PayPal account under Stanley HSU's name and used it to convince bank that he was Hsu for the purpose of transferring money from HSU's bank to PayPal account and from there to his personal account. Till the time bank discovered this fraud Shaw was able to transfer approximately 370,000$ to his personal account.

In order to convict a defendant of defrauding a financial institution under the Bank Fraud Act of 1984, does the government have to prove not only that the defendant had an intent to deceive, but also that the target of that deception was a bank?

To convince a defendant of defrauding a financial institution under the Bank Fraud Act of 1984, the government does not need to prove that the target of the deception was a bank. The government charged Shaw with violating the Bank Fraud of 1984, which criminalizes schemes "to defraud a financial institution". The jury convicted Shaw of 14 counts of bank fraud under the Act, and the U.S courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed.