CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
MAX GERBOC,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
CONTEXTLOGIC, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 16-4734
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 1:16-cv-00928—Donald C. Nugent, District Judge.
Argued: August 1, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 16, 2017
Before: CLAY, GRIFFIN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. As best we can tell, Max Gerboc is happy with the $27 speakers he bought from Wish.com. Yet he wants back 90% of what he paid for them. He does not say that they sound bad, that they are worth less than what he paid, or that he was tricked into buying them. Rather, he thinks that Wish used an unfair advertising ploy to sell them. On the website, the speakers’ purchase price was juxtaposed with a different price: $300. But that number was crossed out, implying that Gerboc was getting a good deal. Gerboc now argues that the deal was an illusion, that Wish’s ploy violated principles of equity and Ohio law, and that he was entitled to buy the speakers at 90% off their purchase price—or, for about $3.

We disagree and affirm.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
FAISAL AHMED,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MARDIA MOHSIN AHMED,
Respondent-Appellee.
   No. 16-6486
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville.
No. 3:16-cv-00142—Thomas W. Phillips, District Judge.
Argued: June 15, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 16, 2017
Before: COLE, Chief Judge; GIBBONS and ROGERS, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

COLE, Chief Judge. This is an action under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (“Hague Convention”), which the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), 22 U.S.C. § 9001 et seq., has implemented into United States law. Faisal Ahmed claims that his wife, Mardia Mohsin Ahmed wrongfully retained their daughters in Knoxville, Tennessee, from the infants’ habitual residence of the United Kingdom. Mr. Ahmed filed a petition for their return. Because Mr. Ahmed has failed to establish that the United Kingdom was the children’s habitual residence at the time Mrs. Ahmed retained them, we affirm the district court’s denial of his petition.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
HEMLOCK SEMICONDUCTOR OPERATIONS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
SOLARWORLD INDUSTRIES SACHSEN GMBH,
Defendant-Appellant.
   No. 16-2181
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:13-cv-11037—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Argued: June 14, 2017
Decided and Filed: August 16, 2017
Before: MOORE, GILMAN, and COOK, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Hemlock Semiconductor Operations, LLC (Hemlock) and SolarWorld Industries Sachsen GmbH (Sachsen) are both involved in manufacturing components of solar-power products. They entered into a series of long-term supply agreements (LTAs), by which Hemlock in Michigan would supply Sachsen in Germany with set quantities of polycrystalline silicon (polysilicon) at fixed prices between the years 2006 and 2019. The market price of polysilicon was initially well above the LTA price, but the market price plummeted several years later after the Chinese government began subsidizing its national production of polysilicon. The parties reached a temporary agreement to lower the LTA price in 2011. When that agreement expired in 2012, however, the price reverted to the original amount. Hemlock then demanded that Sachsen pay the original LTA price for the specified quantity of polysilicon for the year 2012. Sachsen refused.

This caused Hemlock to sue Sachsen for breach of contract in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Based on Hemlock’s motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted, Hemlock was awarded nearly $800 million in damages and prejudgment interest. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.