Alston v. Advance Brands and Importing Company (Page 65)
1. Given the courts reference to the rights of parents in the case of Alston v. Advance Brands and Importing Company, I do not feel there is any alternative theory. This is because, the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that they have standing because they cannot show redressability or a remedy.
2. If Alston had been the parent of a smoker who suffered a smoking-related illness, Alston still could not allege an injury despite the fact that several different brands of the cigarettes contributed to the injury. There was no law broken by the manufacturer but by both the third-party seller and the underage purchasers.

Brower v. Gateway 2000, Inc (Page 74)
1. The way that I would rewrite Gateway’s clause to be sure that it would be judged by the New York courts, would be first to not ask for arbitration before the ICC. Simply make the terms tolerable for the plaintiffs who seek protection of their rights. Furthermore, if the courts find that the defendants are liable then all fees should be refunded.
2. A. In this case the practical implication of Gateway’s loss is that their arbitration clause is unreasonable and burdensome to plaintiffs, it favored Gateway and it chose ICC as the arbitration forum.
B. If Gateway had prevailed; it would have changed the cost-benefit analysis involved in deciding whether to settle the case because most of their computers cost less than the required amount from both parties.
DiMercurio v. Sphere Drake Insurance PLC (Page 90)
1. After recalling the Brower v. Gateway case in Chapter 4, this case is distinguishable because the arbitration clause does not favor either party.
2. In this case, examples of one-sided agreements that would be to valid are, jurisdiction, and the international arbitration clause,
Pagan v. Fruchey and Village of Glendale (Page 108)
1. In this case, the ordinance itself could have been modified as to state that standing is the streets for non-traffic purposes are prohibited because of safety reasons. This may have met the third part of the Central Hudson test.
2. A. The types of data the court wanted from Glendale to support their claims that the ordinance advanced their traffic safety interest were, statics showing incidents that had occurred similar to this case, and actual reports of the same matter.
B. The court did not give more weight to the police chief’s opinion because he did not have proof that supported his claim that he was actually concerned with traffic safety.

State Farm Mutual v. Campbell (Page 112)
1. A. In this case, I do agree with the Court that the damages awarded in this case were arbitrary.
B. Based on the factors outlined by the courts, my reason for agreeing is because there is no rational basis of how the amounts for award were reached.
2. A. Using the factors of this case, one can determine what constitutes an excessive award of damages that may violate a defendant’s due process or does not violate the Due Process Clause by, recognizing the distinction between the conflicting purposes for compensatory and punitive damages.
B. It is obvious that this distinction is not clear as stated in my previous answer. Whereas compensatory damages are intended to restore the concrete loss that the plaintiff has suffered by reason of the defendant’s wrongful conduct, punitive damages are aimed at anticipation and retribution.