Assignment task: Nigel is a businessman in Nevada using the trade name of CalRebuild. The business purchases old cars, refurbishes them as electric cars, and resells the cars at auctions. The company purchased a vintage car through eBay from a Wisconsin company named eCar.com. eCar does not have a dealership office in Nevada nor does it have any online sales personnel in that state. However, it does advertise automobiles for sale in California and throughout the United States through eBay .
Upon receiving the car, Nigel discovered numerous mechanical and aesthetic problems which were materially different than how eCar described and pictured the vehicle online. After failing to resolve the issue through eBay's online dispute resolution process, Nigel sued eCar in a Nevada state court for damages. eCar answered that it was not subject to the jurisdiction of the state court in Nevada because it does not do business in that state.
First, summarize the relevant facts of the case as they relate to each party. A fact is relevant if it had an impact on the case's outcome. Not all facts in the scenario are relevant. An effective method of summarizing relevant facts is to list them numerically in order as a separate sentence. For example, the first relevant fact might be: "Nigel is a resident of California". This fact is relevant because it establishes his state of residency.
Second, list a summary of the issues as they relate to each party;
Third, identify and discuss the relevant law to be applied to each issue from the preceding paragraph;
Finally, write your conclusion in an objective (not subjective) manner. Do not spend time writing about your personal opinions.
Your conclusion describes the legal rationale supporting your decision. In summary, what are the legal principles you are applying to the facts of this case that support your conclusion?