• E-mail: jsmart07@louisville.edu
• Phone: 502-852-8859
• Fax:     502-852-0862
• Office:  262

Upon graduation from Vanderbilt Law School, Professor Martin became an Associate with the international practice group of Baker & Botts, L.L.P., practicing in both the Houston and Dallas offices. A member of the Texas and American Bar Associations, Professor Martin was a Principal Attorney for Houston Industries Incorporated (now Reliant Energy), working on power generation transactions domestically and internationally. 

Professor Martin is a co-founder and contributor to the Commercial Law weblog at http://ucclaw.blogspot.com/.  The blog takes up all issues related to commercial law, particularly the Uniform Commercial Code.  The blog is a member of the Jurisdynamics Network.

• Uniform Commercial Code Survey: Sales of Goods, 64  Bus. Law. (forthcoming 2009) (with Robyn L. Meadows)
• Impracticability Under the UCC for Wartime Contracts, 60 Fla. L. Rev.  (forthcoming 2008)
• Uniform Commercial Code Survey: Sales of Goods, 63 Bus. Law. 1285 (2008) (with Robyn L. Meadows)
• New England School of Law Symposium, Modern Warfare: The Role of the Non State Actor, Contracting for Wartime Actors: The Limits of the Contract Paradigm, 14 New Eng. J. Int’l Comp. L. 11 (2007)
• House of Mouse and Beyond: Assessing the SEC’s Efforts To Regulate Executive Compensation, 32 Delaware J. Corp. L. 481 (2007)
• An Emerging Worldwide Standard for Protections of Consumers in the Sale of Goods: Did We Miss an Opportunity with Revised UCC Article 2?, 41 Tex. Int’l L. J. 223 (2006)
• Western New England College School of Law Symposium, State v. Oakley, Coercive Abortions and Criminalizing the Birth of Children: Some Thoughts on the Impact on Women of State v. Oakley, 26 W. New Eng. L. Rev. 67 (2004)
• Co-Author: VEBAs, Welfare Plans, and Sec. 419A(f)(6): Is the IRS Trying to Regulate or Spread Propaganda?, 32 Southwestern L. Rev. 1 (2003)
• Consistency in Judicial Interpretation? A Look at CERCLA Parent Company and Shareholder Liability After United States v. Bestfoods, 17 Georgia State L. Rev. 410 (2000)
• Initiating and Responding to Subpoenas, Depositions and Other Discovery in Transnational Litigation, 66 Tenn. L. Rev. 765 (1999)

• Computer-Assisted Legal Instruction (CALI) lessons in contract and commercial law
• Agreements Lacking Consideration: Gift Promises (2007)
• Acceptance (2004)
• Battle of the Forms (UCC 2-207) (2005)
• Bilateral and Unilateral Contracts (2004)
• Consideration: The Basics of Consideration and the Bargain Theory (2004)
• Duration of Offers (2003)
• Express and Implied Contracts (2003)
• Formation of Contracts Under UCC Article 2 (2005)
• Indefiniteness (2004)
• Invitations to Negotiate and other Expressions that are not Offers (2003)
• Letters of Intent and Other Formal Preliminary Agreements (2004)
• Mailbox Rule (2004)
• Mutual Assent (2003)
• Offer (2003)
• Option Contracts and Firm Offers (2004)
• Written Agreement Contemplated v. Written Memorialization (2004)
• Warranties (2002)
• Implied Terms (2002)
• Interpretation (2002)
• Good Faith (2002)

• Speaker, Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Faculty Luncheon Series, “Impracticability Under UCC 2-615 for Wartime Contracts” (September 2008)
• Speaker, University of Pittsburgh Spring Faculty Colloquium, “Impracticability Under UCC 2-615 for Wartime Contracts” (May 2008)
• Speaker, AALS International Contracts Conference, “Rethinking Impracticability Under UCC 2-615 for Wartime Contracts” (February 2008)
• Speaker, Oxford Round Table, Global Migration: “The Role of the Board in a Migratory World” (July 2007)
• Speaker, AALS Spring Contracts Conference, “Using Technology in the Teaching of Contracts” (February 2007)
• Speaker, New England School of Law Symposium, Modern Warfare: The Role of the Non State Actor: “Contracting for Wartime Actors” (February 2007)
• Speaker, Junior Faculty Exchange: “The Decline of State Law Primacy Over Corporate Governance” (October 2006)
• Speaker, AALS Spring Contracts Conference: The Diversity of Contract Law: “An Emerging Worldwide Standard for Protections of Consumers in the Sale of Goods: Did We Miss an Opportunity with Revised UCC Article 2?” (February 2006)
• Speaker, WNEC Faculty Forum:  “An Emerging Worldwide Standard for Protections of Consumers in the Sale of Goods: Did We Miss an Opportunity with Revised UCC Article 2?” (September 2005)
• Speaker, WNEC Faculty Forum:  VEBAs, Welfare Plans, and Sec. 419A(f)(6):  Is the IRS Trying to Regulate or Spread Propaganda? (October 2002)
• Speaker, Chase Faculty Forum: Consistency in Judicial Interpretation? A Look at CERCLA Parent Company and Shareholder Liability After United States v. Bestfoods (Fall 2000)
• Speaker, Southeastern Conference of the AALS Annual Meeting: Young Scholars Workshops, Consistency in Judicial Interpretation? A Look at CERCLA Parent Company and Shareholder Liability After United States v. Bestfoods (August 2000)
• Speaker, Southeastern Conference of the AALS Annual Meeting: Young Scholars Workshops, The Need for Legislative Reform in International Adoptions (July 20, 1999)
• Speaker, University of Texas School of Law, Advanced International Law Institute Conference: Advising Clients in Trouble, Initiating and Responding to Discovery in Transnational Litigation: Procedures and Challenges (April 16,1999)

• Professor Martin administers the annual Selma Moidel Student Writing Competition for the National Association of Women Lawyers. 
• Professor Martin has been nominated to the Board of Directors of CALI.

• when they plan to increase your rate and fees
• how long it will take you to pay off your balance.

• no rate increases for new cards in the first year
• rate increases only apply to new charges
• restrictions on over-the-limit transactions
• caps on high fee cards
• protections for underage consumers (under 21)

• standardized payment dates and times (i.e. payments due on the same day each month)
• payments applied to highest risk first
• no two-cycle billing.

1. David Evans and Joshua Wright: How the Consumer Financial Protection Agency Act of 2009 Would Change the Law and Regulation of Consumer Financial Products
2. Jennifer S. Martin: What You Should Know about the Debit Card in Your Wallet: Where the Federal Reserve's New Overdraft May Fall Short
3. Francesc Prior Sanz and Javier Santomá: Banking the Unbanked Using Prepaid Platforms and Mobile Telephones in the U.S.
4. Ulf Mattsson: Demystifying PCI Technologies

Happy reading! Yes, after reading all the examinations. I've got a stack of first year Contracts exams coming my way this afternoon.

- JSM

1. The card is inactive for one year;
2. No more than one fee is charged monthly; and
3. The provider gives notice of the fees to the consumer.

Moreover, cards cannot expire for at least five years after purchase or reloading of the card. Both store-specific and network based cards are covered by the rules.

- JSM

1. Banks must comply with the Final Rules as of July 1, 2010


2. Banks cannot charge an overdraft fee on ATM and point-of-sale debit card (POS) transactions without the customer affirmatively opting-in to overdraft protection


3. The rules apply to existing and new accounts


4. Banks must offer the same account terms to customers who do not choose overdraft protection for ATM and POS transactions

Three issues remain unresolved by the Final Rules: (i) the size of overdraft fees (often $35 per transaction with no daily limit on the number of transactions charged; (ii) the batch reordering of transactions done by banks to increase the amount of fees generated on transactions by customers who do opt-in; and (iii) debit holds that trigger overdraft fees on transactions such as gasoline, hotels and restaurants. These gaps aside, the progress made by the Federal Reserve on debit cards is substantial.

Remember, banks can still charge the fees on those who have not opted-in until July 2010. So, still use your debit cards with care. As for me, I will not be opting-in, but will await the sales pitch that banks will inevitably make.

This paper discusses consumer protections available to gift-card users. Specifically, it examines the ways in which value loaded at the time of purchase is protected for future card use or returned to consumers when the card is not used or has expired. The consumer protection information included in this paper is derived from a number of sources, including several types of state statutes, Federal Trade Commission decisions, financial industry regulatory agency guidelines, and previous interviews with payments industry experts regarding practices concerning network-branded gift cards. This paper expands research begun by the Payment Cards Center in 2004 into prepaid cards generally and the protections available to consumers who use gift cards specifically.

This paper addresses two issues concerning the scope of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”), both of which have arisen in recent decisions applying the Convention: 1) whether requirements imposed by U.S. domestic sales law on attempts to disclaim implied warranties apply to attempts to derogate from the seller‘s obligations under Arts. 35(2)(a) & (b) CISG; and 2) whether burden of proof questions that are not expressly addressed in the CISG are governed by the general principles of the CISG. The paper defends the use of the distinction between substantive and procedural law in defining the scope of the CISG with respect to burden of proof issues, and in determining the whether the Convention provides for the recovery of damages for attorneys’ fees incurred to litigate a claim under the CISG. The paper concludes by arguing that defining the limits of the Convention‘s scope is critical to its success, and to the success of future attempts to create uniform international commercial law.

For the past several years, Baby Einstein has been under attack by propaganda groups taking extreme positions that try to dictate what parents should do, say and buy. Our philosophy has always been to focus on creating products that parents and babies love, and to not get sidetracked and pulled down into their street fight.

Unfortunately, with Susan Linn’s latest stunt, we cannot be silent any longer. Linn’s obvious dislike for Baby Einstein has now turned into a sensational, headline-grabbing publicity campaign that seeks to twist and spin a simple, customer satisfaction action into a false admission of guilt. This is clearly not the case.

Linn’s moves are carefully crafted to prey on parental guilt and uncertainty. This time, she began by asking the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to go after Baby Einstein because, she said, we claimed that Baby Einstein was educational. But we do not make any such claim – and the FTC brought no action.

Not content to rely on the judgment of the federal government, her attacks continued and escalated despite the fact that her assertions have no merit.

That’s where we are today. However, we took a very different approach. We strongly believe that, unlike Linn, our consumers find value in our product, and rather than continue to fight with her, we decided to leave it up to those consumers. That is why we extended a refund policy that was already in place. Although she would like to claim otherwise, there is nothing extraordinary about a company’s willingness to stand behind its product. To the contrary, it is the strongest possible show of confidence in it.

Baby Einstein announced this offer in a press release issued on September 4, 2009, which was largely ignored by the media. Linn’s latest public relations blitz simply distorts the facts and misleads the public. In the end, this smear campaign has everything to do with Linn trying to generate ink and funding for her cause, and not about the value that consumers find in our product.

Thank you for letting us set the record straight.

Sincerely,

Susan McLain
General Manager, The Baby Einstein Company