Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM


Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.


Paris Hilton v Hairtech International Inc. (2010)

Business Law

Megan Hull

on 29 November 2012

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Paris Hilton v Hairtech International Inc. (2010)

Britany Irelan and Megan Hull Background Facts Law Ruling on the Case Opinions *2007 - Paris Hilton agreed to wear Hairtech's hair extensions under her $3.5 million contract.
*Publicity for both parties *Hairtech then sued for the breach of the contract due to Hilton's infliction with the law and the absence from a 2007 launch party for the extensions line .
*She wore extensions from another company Settlement is definitely fair
Paris Hilton v Hairtech International Inc. (2010) * The judge dropped the case because information was presented to the courtroom that supported Hilton.

*A settlement was then reach between Hilton and Hairtech. *tried to sue for 10x more than contract agreement ($35 million)
*They claim that they lost $6.6 million dollars in profit
*tarnished reputation
Full transcript