SOLUTION MANUAL
6
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
6 6 6 6 6 6
by Roger E. Meiners, Chapters 1 - 22, Complete
6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
6 6 6
Chapter61.6Today’s6Business6Environment:6Law6and6Ethics
Chapter62.6The6Court6Systems
Chapter63.6Trials6and6Resolving6Disputes
Chapter64.6The6Constitution:6Focus6on6Application6to6Business
Chapter65.6Criminal6Law6and6Business
Chapter66.6Elements6of6Torts
Chapter67.6Business6Torts6and6Product6Liability
Chapter68.6Real6and6Personal6Property
Chapter69.6Intellectual6Property
Chapter610.6Contracts
Chapter611.6Domestic6and6International6Sales
Chapter612.6Business6Organizations
Chapter613.6Negotiable6Instruments,6Credit,6and6Bankruptcy
Chapter614.6Agency6and6the6Employment6Relationship
Chapter615.6Employment6and6Labor6Regulations
Chapter616.6Employment6Discrimination
Chapter617.6The6Regulatory6Process
Chapter618.6Securities6Regulation
Chapter619.6Consumer6Protection
Chapter620.6Antitrust6Law
Chapter621.6Environmental6Law
Chapter622.6The6International6Legal6Environment6of6Business
,CHAPTER 1 6
Table of Contents
6 6
Answer6to6Discussion6Question .................................................................................................................... 1
Answers6to6Case6Questions .......................................................................................................................... 1
Answers6to6Ethics6and6Social6Questions ...................................................................................................... 3
Answer to Discussion Question
6 6 6
Should6the6common6law6maxim6“Ignorance6of6the6law6is6no6excuse”6apply6to6an6immigrant6who6speaks6little6Engl
ish6and6was6not6educated6in6the6United6States?6How6about6for6a6tourist6who6does6not6speak6English?6Everyone6
knows6criminal6acts6are6prohibited,6but6what6about6subtler6rules6that6differ6across6countries6and6so6may6be6mis
understood6by6foreigners?
Answer:6It6is6generally6true6that6ignorance6of6the6 law6is6no6excuse.6Citizens6are6deemed6to6have6constructive6k
nowledge6of6the6law.6Yet,6as6well6known6as6this6rule6is,6it6is6surprising6how6often6it6is6proffered6as6an6excu
se.6(A6Westlaw6search6cases6finds6hundreds6of6examples).6Examples6include:6Deluco6v.6Dezi6(Conn.6Super)6(
lack6of6knowledge6regarding6the6state‘s6usury6laws6is6no6excuse6for6the6inclusion6of6an6illegal6interest6rate6
in6a6sales6contract);6and6Plumlee6v.6Paddock6(ignorance6of6the6fact6that6the6subject6matter6of6the6contract6
was6illegal6was6not6excuse).6The6courts6have6provided6a6small6exception6to6the6rule6when6it6comes6to6peo
ple6in6lack6of6English6language6skills.6Consider6Flanery6v.6Kuska,6(defendant6did6not6speak6English6was6advi
sed6by6a6friend6that6an6answer6to6a6complaint6was6not6required);6Ramon6v.6Dept.6of6Transportation,6(no6E
nglish6and6an6inability6to6understand6the6law6required6for6an6excuse);6Yurechko6v.6County6of6Allegheny,6(Ig
norance6and6with6the6fact6that6the6municipality6suffered6no6hardship6in6late6lawsuit6filing6was6an6excuse).
Answers to Case Questions
6 6 6
1. Facts6from6an6English6judge’s6decision6in61884:6“The6crew6of6an6English6yacht .................were6cast6away6in
a6storm6on6the6high6seas6.6.6.6and6were6compelled6to6put6into6an6open6boat. ............. They6had6no6supply
of6water6and6no6supply6of6food.6.6.6.6That6on6the6eighteenth6day6.6.6.6they ............ suggested6that6one
should6be6sacrificed6to6save6the6rest.6.6.6.6That6next6day6.6.6.6they6.6.6.6went6to6the6boy .............. put6a6knife
into6his6throat6and6killed6him6.6.6.6the6three6men6fed6upon6the6body ............of6the6boy6for6four6days;6[then]
the6boat6was6picked6up6by6a6passing6vessel,6and6[they]6were6rescued.6.6.6.6and6committed6for6trial.6.6.6.
if6the6men6had6not6fed6upon6the6body6of6the6boy6they6would6probably6not6have6survived6to6be6so6pick
ed6up6and6rescued,6but6would ................. have6died6of6famine.6The6boy,6being6in6a6much6weaker
condition,6was6likely6to6have6died6before6them ............ The6real6question6in6this6case6[is]6whether6killing
under6the6conditions6set6forth ......... be6or6be6not6murder.”6Do6you6consider6the6acts6to6be6immoral?
[Regina6v.6Dudley6and6Stephens,6146Queens6Bench6Division62736(1884)]
Answer:6This6points6out6that6the6legal6system6has6limits.6Its6acceptability6is6dictated6by6legal6culture--
which6determines6whether6law6will6be6enforced,6obeyed,6avoided,6or6abused.6It6is6limited6by6the6informal6r
ules6of6the6society--
its6customs6and6values.6One6limit6is6the6extent6to6which6society6will6allow6the6formal6rules6to6be6imposed6
when6a6crime6is6committed6in6odd6circumstances.6Here6there6was6an6intentional6murder.6Does6the6motive6
for6the6murder,6the6effort6to6save6several6lives6by6sacrificing6one
, life,6make6it6a6crime6that6should6be6punished?6Not6all6crimes6are6treated6the6same.6 It6also6raises6questions6a
bout6the6desirability6of6not6giving6judges6flexibility6in6sentencing.
There6was6a6precedent6for6a6light6sentence6in6this6case6in6U.S.6law:6 U.S.6v.6Holmes,6206F.6Cas.63606(No.6153
83)6(C.C.E.D.6Pa.61842).6The6case6involved6a6sinking6ocean6liner.6Several6passengers6made6it6to6the6only6lifeb
oat,6which6was6far6too6overcrowded.6The6captain6decided6to6save6the6women6and6children6and6threw6 seve
ral6 men6overboard.6The6lifeboat6 was6rescued.6 The6 grand6 jury6refused6to6indict6the6captain6from6murder,6o
nly6for6manslaughter.6He6got6a6six6month6sentence.
The6British6judge6in6the6case6here6imposed6the6death6penalty6upon6the6person6who6survived.6The6judg
e6found6it6difficult6to6rule6that6every6man6on6board6had6the6right6to6make6law6by6his6own6hand.6The6Cr
own6reduced6the6sentence6to6six6months.
2. Smoking6is6a6serious6health6hazard.6Cigarettes6are6legal.6Should6cigarette6manufacturers6be6liable6for6the6s
erious6illnesses6and6untimely6deaths6caused6by6their6unavoidably6dangerous6products,6even6though6they6po
st6a6warning6on6the6package6and6consumers6voluntarily6assume6the6health6risks6by6smoking?6[Cipollone6v.6
Liggett6Group,6Inc.,65056U.S.65046(1992)]
Answer:6The6general6rule6that6exists6now6is6that6since6the6government6has6ordered6the6posting6of6warning6label
s6on6cigarettes,6and6since6the6dangers6of6smoking6are6well6known,6consumers6have6been6warned6and6are6
not6due6compensation6if6they6kill6themselves6by6smoking.6The6 Cippoline6case,6since6reviewed6by6the6Supre
me6Court,6appears6to6be6of6limited6impact6since6the6 victim6was6adjudged6to6have6become6addicted6to6ciga
rettes6before6the6warning6label6was6ordered6in61964.6If6cigarette6makers6were6held6responsible6for6all6hea
lth6problems6associated6with6cigarettes,6then,6like6alcohol6and6other6dangerous6products,6the6damages6wo
uld6likely6be6so6high6it6would6effectively6ban6the6products.6Presumably,6in6a6free6society6if6adults6are6clearl
y6informed6of6the6risks6of6products6that6cannot6be6made6safe,6they6accept6the6risk.6Tobacco6and6alcohol6p
roducers6cannot6take6the6dangers6out6of6the6products6except6at6the6margin6by6encouraging6responsible6dr
inking6and6the6like.6Are6drugs6like6cocaine6different?
3. Two6eight-year-old6boys6were6seriously6injured6when6riding6Honda6mini-
trail6bikes.6The6boys6were6riding6on6public6streets,6ran6a6stop6sign,6and6were6hit6by6a6truck.6The6bikes6had6c
lear6warning6labels6on6the6front6stating6they6were6only6for6off-
road6use.6The6manual6stated6the6bikes6were6not6to6be6used6on6public6streets.6The6parents6sued6Honda.6The6
supreme6court6of6Washington6said6one6basic6issue6existed:6“Is6a6manufacturer6liable6when6children6are6inju
red6while6riding6one6of6its6mini-
trail6bikes6on6a6public6road6in6violation6of6manufacturer6and6parental6warnings?”6Is6it6unethical6to6make6pro
ducts6like6mini-
trail6bikes6children6will6use6when6we6know6accidents6like6this6will6happen?6[Baughn6v.6Honda6Motor6Co.,672
76P.2d66556Sup.6Ct,6Wash.,6(1986)]
Answer:6The6court6found6no6liability6for6the6manufacturers.6There6was6no6defect;6the6product6was6safe6for6inte
nded6use.6Safety6instructions6were6clear;6the6parents6let6the6boys6ride6the6bikes.6Anything6can6be6dangero
us--
baseballs6are6dangerous6when6they6hit6the6head,6swings6are6dangerous6when6kids6jump6out6of6them;6there
6is6only6so6much6that6can6be6done6to6make6the6government6the6―national6nanny‖6as6the6Washington6Post
6once6said6about6excessive6consumer6protection.6Parents6must6accept6a6high6degree6of6 responsible6for6th
eir6own6children.
4. Johnson6Controls6adopted6a6“fetal6protection6policy”6that6women6of6childbearing6age6could6not6work6in6th
e6battery-
making6division6of6the6company.6Exposure6to6lead6in6the6battery6operation6could6cause6harm6to6unborn6ba
bies.6The6company6was6concerned6about6possible6legal6liability6for6injury6suffered6by6babies6of6mothers6wh
o6had6worked6in6the6battery6division.6The6Supreme6Court6held6the6company6policy6was6illegal.6It6was6an6“ex
cuse6for6denying6women6equal6employment6opportunities.”6Is6the6Court6forcing6the6company6to6be6unethic
al6by6allowing6pregnant6women6who6ignore6the6warnings6to6expose6their6babies6to6the6lead?6[United6Auto
6Workers6v.6Johnson6 Controls,64996U.S.61876(1991)]
