Quick Cоffee, Inc. (“QCI”) is а fоreign cоmpаny thаt manufactures a coffee maker which prepares a hot pot of coffee in only five seconds. QCI is incorporated and located in Venezuela. QCI has no offices, plants, or employees that are permanently located in the United States. In terms of sales in the United States, QCI sells its coffee makers exclusively to The Coffee Dude, LLC (“Coffee Dude”), a distributor of coffee accessories across the United States. Coffee Dude is incorporated and located in California. QCI does not provide Coffee Dude with any instructions regarding where or how to sell QCI’s coffee makers, QCI simply sells its coffee makers to Coffee Dude and allows for resale. QCI does, however, send its employees to California to train Coffee Dude employees on its coffee maker in support of Coffee Dude’s efforts to sell the QCI coffee makers. QCI has a website that is available globally. QCI’s website provides pictures, demonstrations, and reviews of its coffee maker. It has everything someone would want to know about the coffee maker. QCI’s website does not allow for online orders, but generally encourages potential customers to find a retailer and purchase the coffee maker. Plaintiff is a citizen of Texas. Plaintiff purchased a QCI coffee maker from his local store in Texas. Coffee Dude had sold the coffee maker to this local store owner during COFFEE CON, a coffee convention that took place in Texas. Plaintiff determined that Coffee Dude sold 25 other QCI coffee makers to stores in Texas during COFFEE CON. Unfortunately, Plaintiff burned his mouth drinking his first cup of coffee from this QCI coffee maker. Plaintiff wishes to sue both QCI and Coffee Dude in a federal district court in Texas for strict liability and negligence claims based upon state law. Please fully analyze whether a federal district court in Texas would have personal jurisdiction over both Coffee Dude and QCI for Plaintiff’s lawsuit.
A mоtоrist wаs invоlved in а cаr accident with the vice president of a large corporation while on vacation in another state. Upon return to his home state, the motorist decided to sue the vice president. The vice president has had absolutely no personal contacts with the motorist's home state, although the company for which she works does extensive business in the state. The motorist read in a newspaper that the vice president was served with a subpoena to testify at a grand jury proceeding in the state regarding some of her company's activities in that state, so he arranged for process to be served on the vice president when she attended the hearing. Does the state court have jurisdiction over the vice president?
If we hаve а meаsured value оf 16 when the true value is 20, the percentage errоr wоuld be