1.

Seki or Magical Adventures Balloon Rides asserts three legal claims, these are: Claims for the
breach of contract, tortious interference with contractual relations and invasion of privacy
through misappropriation against Groupon Inc. As for the claim of breach of contract, Magical
adventure alleged that it had entered into an enforceable contract with Groupon pursuant to
which Groupon agreed to pay it for the amount of $150 for each sportations voucher that the
Groupon failed to tender the payment pursuant to the agreement. For tortious interference
with contractual relations, Magical Adventures asserts that the Groupon’s use of its name and
likeness on Groupon’s website induced D&D to breach the oral contract to refrain from
engaging in Groupon advertising as well as it induced Magical Adventure’s breach of Temecula
Valley Balloon association bylaws which prohibits them to engage with Groupon without their
approval. Lastly, for the invasion of privacy through misappropriation against Groupon Inc,
Magical Adventures alleged that Groupon’s act of publishing Magical Adventure’s name, brand
and likeness of their website and printable vouchers was unauthorized. This act resulted in a
higher position for Groupon’s website rather than Magical Adventures.
2. A. The legal claims that the Georgia Court of Appeals upheld in favor of Groupon are the claims
for the breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relations. The Georgia
Court of Appeals upheld the ruling of the trial court for breach of contract because Magical
Adventures failed to establish a breach of contract. As provided by the Georgia Law, the
elements of a right to recover for a breach of contract are the breach and the resultant damages
to the party who has the right to complain about the contract being broken. The court further
ruled that breach occurs if a contracting party repudiates or renounces liability under the
contract; fails to perform the engagement as specified in the contract; or does some act that
renders performance impossible. Contrary to what Magical Adventures alleged against the
Groupon, it was found in the records that Groupon paid or attempted to pay for each of the
redeemed vouchers.
As for the tortious interference with contractual relations, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed
the ruling of the trial court as it was found that Magical Adventures failed to establish sufficient
evidence to establish casual connection between its alleged decrease in revenue and D&D’s
alleged breach so as to establish damages. The law provides that in order to succeed on a
tortious interference with contractual relations claim, a plaintiff must show that a defendant: (1)
acted improperly or wrongfully and without privilege; (2) acted purposely, with malice, and with
the intent to injure; (3) induced a third party to breach a contract with the plaintiff; and (4)
caused plaintiff financial injury. Since the evidence of damages is essential for a claim of tortious
interference with contractual relations and Magical Adventures failed to alleged the damages it
suffered, the court ruled in favor with Groupon in this issue.
B. The legal claim which was reversed by Georgia Court of Appeals and was ruled in Favor of
Seki was the invasion of privacy through misappropriation against the Groupon. Georgia law
provides that "the appropriation of another's name and likeness without consent and for
the financial gain of the appropriator is a tort." Sometimes referred as right to publicity
misappropriation of someone’s name or likeness constitutes one of four recognized forms of
invasion of privacy, the others being: first, intrusion upon the plaintiff's seclusion or solitude,
or into his private affairs; second, public disclosure of embarrassing facts about the plaintiff;
and publicity which places the plaintiff in a false light in the public eye. The Court ruled that
interest protected in the appropriation cases is not so much a mental as a proprietary one,
 in the exclusive use of the plaintiff's name and likeness as an aspect of his identity. Since the
trade name is nothing more than an extension of the person using it, also that the rationale
underpinning the tort of misappropriation is to protect the proprietary interest one has in
the exclusive use of his or her name and likeness, the Court of Appeals see no logical reason
why that interest should be treated differently depending on whether it originates from the
name and likeness of the individual proprietor or his or her trade name. Presumably both
derive their value from the goodwill of that individual, who should be entitled to prevent
others from unjustly profiting from the same. Based on this reason, the Court of Appeals
ruled in favor of Seki, holding that Seki is not precluded from pursuing a claim for invasion of
privacy through misappropriation based solely on the fact that the subject of the alleged
appropriation was a trade name.
3. The legal axiom cited by the Georgia Court of Appeals is the phrase: "an unincorporated
proprietorship is not a legal entity separate from the proprietor, and the use of a trade name for
the business does not make a separate legal entity." This was cited by the court as a reference
for deciding the issue concerning Seki’s claim for invasion of privacy through misappropriation.