The Legal Environment of Business
14th Edition
by Roger E. Meiners
Complete Chapter Solutions Manual
are included (Ch 1 to 22)
** Immediate Download
** Swift Response
** All Chapters included
, Solution and Answer Guide
Meiners, The Legal Environment of Business, 14e, 9780357451724; Chapter 1: Today's
Business Environment: Law and Ethics
Table of Contents
Answer to Discussion Question .................................................................................................... 1
Answers to Case Questions .......................................................................................................... 1
Answers to Ethics and Social Questions ...................................................................................... 3
Answer to Discussion Question
Should the common law maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” apply to an immigrant who speaks
little English and was not educated in the United States? How about for a tourist who does not speak
English? Everyone knows criminal acts are prohibited, but what about subtler rules that differ across
countries and so may be misunderstood by foreigners?
Answer: It is generally true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have
constructive knowledge of the law. Yet, as well known as this rule is, it is surprising how often it is
proffered as an excuse. (A Westlaw search cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include:
Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack of knowledge regarding the state’s usury laws is no excuse for
the inclusion of an illegal interest rate in a sales contract); and Plumlee v. Paddock (ignorance of the
fact that the subject matter of the contract was illegal was not excuse). The courts have provided a
small exception to the rule when it comes to people in lack of English language skills. Consider
Flanery v. Kuska, (defendant did not speak English was advised by a friend that an answer to a
complaint was not required); Ramon v. Dept. of Transportation, (no English and an inability to
understand the law required for an excuse); Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (Ignorance and with
the fact that the municipality suffered no hardship in late lawsuit filing was an excuse).
Answers to Case Questions
1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht . . . were cast away in
a storm on the high seas . . . and were compelled to put into an open boat. . . . They had no supply
of water and no supply of food. . . . That on the eighteenth day . . . they . . . suggested that one
should be sacrificed to save the rest. . . . That next day . . . they . . . went to the boy . . . put a knife
into his throat and killed him . . . the three men fed upon the body . . . of the boy for four days; [then]
the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and [they] were rescued. . . . and committed for trial. . . .
if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be so
picked up and rescued, but would . . . have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
condition, was likely to have died before them. . . . The real question in this case [is] whether killing
under the conditions set forth . . . be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to be immoral?
[Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)]
Answer: This points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated by legal culture--which
determines whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal
rules of the society--its customs and values. One limit is the extent to which society will allow the
formal rules to be imposed when a crime is committed in odd circumstances. Here there was an
intentional murder. Does the motive for the murder, the effort to save several lives by sacrificing one
, life, make it a crime that should be punished? Not all crimes are treated the same. It also raises
questions about the desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
There was a precedent for a light sentence in this case in U.S. law: U.S. v. Holmes, 20 F. Cas. 360
(No. 15383) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers made
it to the only lifeboat, which was far too overcrowded. The captain decided to save the women and
children and threw several men overboard. The lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to
indict the captain from murder, only for manslaughter. He got a six month sentence.
The British judge in the case here imposed the death penalty upon the person who survived. The
judge found it difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to make law by his own hand.
The Crown reduced the sentence to six months.
2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette manufacturers be liable
for the serious illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their unavoidably dangerous products, even
though they post a warning on the package and consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by
smoking? [Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)]
Answer: The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting of warning
labels on cigarettes, and since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been
warned and are not due compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippoline case, since
reviewed by the Supreme Court, appears to be of limited impact since the victim was adjudged to
have become addicted to cigarettes before the warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette
makers were held responsible for all health problems associated with cigarettes, then, like alcohol
and other dangerous products, the damages would likely be so high it would effectively ban the
products. Presumably, in a free society if adults are clearly informed of the risks of products that
cannot be made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcohol producers cannot take the dangers
out of the products except at the margin by encouraging responsible drinking and the like. Are drugs
like cocaine different?
3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-trail bikes. The boys were
riding on public streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck. The bikes had clear warning labels
on the front stating they were only for off-road use. The manual stated the bikes were not to be used
on public streets. The parents sued Honda. The supreme court of Washington said one basic issue
existed: “Is a manufacturer liable when children are injured while riding one of its mini-trail bikes on a
public road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it unethical to make products like
mini-trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this will happen? [Baughn v. Honda
Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655 Sup. Ct, Wash., (1986)]
Answer: The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product was safe for
intended use. Safety instructions were clear; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can be
dangerous--baseballs are dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids jump
out of them; there is only so much that can be done to make the government the “national nanny” as
the Washington Post once said about excessive consumer protection. Parents must accept a high
degree of responsible for their own children.
4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age could not work
in the battery-making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the battery operation could cause
harm to unborn babies. The company was concerned about possible legal liability for injury suffered
by babies of mothers who had worked in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the company
policy was illegal. It was an “excuse for denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the
Court forcing the company to be unethical by allowing pregnant women who ignore the warnings to
expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)]
Answer: The Court held it a form of sex discrimination to prevent women of child-bearing age from
holding the more dangerous jobs. The company argued that it did this to protect itself from possible
liability in case of damage to babies and that the decision was ethical. The replacements for these
workers were often men or more senior women, who tended to be higher income workers, so this
