Tentamen (uitwerkingen)
Solution Manual For The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners
- Vak
- Instelling
- Boek
Solution Manual For The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners
[Meer zien]Voorbeeld 4 van de 81 pagina's
Voorbeeld 4 van de 81 pagina's
In winkelwagen
In winkelwagen
gesponsord bericht van onze partner
Gekoppeld boek
Titel boek:
Auteur(s):
- Uitgave:
- ISBN:
- Druk:
Meer samenvattingen voor studieboek
-
Solution Manual For The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners, Verified Chapters 1 - 22 Complete, Newest Version
-
Solution Manual For The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners, Verified Chapters 1 - 22 Complete, Newest Version
-
Solution Manual For The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners, Verified Chapters 1 - 22 Complete Version
Verkoper
Volgen
MedGeek
Ontvangen beoordelingen
Voorbeeld van de inhoud
1 © 2022 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. Solution Manual for The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners Chapter 1-22 Chapter 1 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? H ow 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 (Con n. 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 sp eak 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 compe lled 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 . . . p ut 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 ki lling 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 dic tated 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 impose d 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 MEDCONNOISSEUR 2 © 2022 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. 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 mu rder, 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 damag es 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 bas ic 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 cl ear; 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. T he 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 lea d? [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 MEDCONNOISSEUR 3 © 2022 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. was not a current cost -saving move. Note that a 2002 r uling related to the ADA significantly restricted this earlier case. 5. McGrory worked for Applied Signal Technology in a supervisory position. He was accused of violating the company’s policies on sexual harassment. An internal investigation determined he di d not violate the policy but that he was evasive and violated the company’s personal ethics code. He was fired and sued for wrongful termination, contending that if he did not violate sexual harassment rules he should not have been subject to termination. Do standards of law and ethics need to be the same for an employer? [ McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology , 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 154 (2013)] Answer: The appeals court affirmed that the employer had the right to terminate the employee for failure to be fully coop erative in the investigation of the complaint of sexual harassment that had been filed against him. While he was not found to have violated the harassment policy, he was evasive and uncooperative, which violated the company‘s code of ethics, which was a ju stification for termination. 6. Baker works as a document clerk for the Minnesota Supreme Court. After she had worked there for 13 years the Minnesota judicial branch adopted a policy concerning proper Internet use and stated that employees must adhere to the highest ethical standards when using the Internet. Eleven years later, she was fired for excessive surfing on the Internet during working hours. She contended she did not know about the policy. Is that an adequate defense for her? [ Baker v. Minnesota Supreme Court , 2016 WL 102513 (2016)] Answer: The Minnesota high court held that Baker‘s termination was proper. She violated standards expected of employees. She had been warned about excessive personal Internet use during work time, including buying and selling goods for a little business she ran. The claim that she did not know about the ethics of Internet use was not credible as the policy was posted for all employees who received e -mails about any changes to the policy. The fact that the term ―ethical‖ was used in the policy does not likely impact this decision. Answers to Ethics and Social Questions 1. The federal tax code is riddled with special -interest loopholes. Most of these exist because firms and trade associations lobby Congress and provide campai gn support to members of Congress to gain special favors to individual firms or industries. Is it ethical for firms to seek special privilege? Answer: The nature of our political system forces firms to participate in the political process. Those that fail to do so, if they are of any size, are more likely to be subject to political attack. In a sense, firms ―buy‖ protection by keeping a flow of contributions going, especially to incumbent members of Congress. Competition also means that if a firm does not l obby for special privilege, then it may suffer if competitors achieve such status in the tax code or some area of regulation. Many business leaders do not much care for the Washington, D.C. operations their firms support but know that it is a part of the m odern legal environment of business. 2. “Fair trade” goods have become popular, as some people are willing to pay more to know the goods come from workers paid a decent price for their efforts. However, some retailers who sell fair trade goods mark them up su bstantially more than nonfair trade goods. One study showed that coffee growers got an average of 44 cents a pound more for fair trade coffee, but the coffee at retail was marked up an additional $3.46 per pound. At one supermarket chain, fair trade banana s that cost an extra 3.6 cents per pound were marked up four times the price of non -fair trade bananas. Fair trade goods are claimed to be a form of social responsibility. Is that true if it just means higher profit margins? Answer: The high mark up suppre sses the demand for fair trade goods, thereby reducing the market for fair trade goods. If the retail prices reflected the actual additional cost, not the profit maximizing price to the retailer that exploits the goodwill from ―fair trade,‖ then it is hard to argue that the company is being particularly socially responsible. MEDCONNOISSEUR 4 © 2022 Cengage. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. 3. A chemical company located a new plant in a depressed area with high unemployment in West Virginia. It built a state -of-the-art plant that had the latest pollution control technology me eting all EPA requirements. It created 2,500 jobs. The company was attacked for polluting a previously pristine area. Had the plant been built in an industrial area, such as the coast near Houston, no one would have been likely to complain. Was the company socially irresponsible for building the plant in such an area? Answer: The company was in a no -win situation. It was attacked by environmentalists and some locals for ―destroying‖ the environment, even though the pollution was acceptable. When the company later stated it would close the plant, which as not profitable, it came under fire for destroying jobs. It eventually upgraded the plant and kept it open, but it was never a profitable operation. The plant should probably not have been built in such a rem ote location, as that made it a target. Built in a higher -density area and there would have been fewer issues as the environmental impact on an existing industrial area would have been small. Corporate social responsibility can involve difficult tradeoffs that do not always allow a win -win result. 4. Discussion of ethics issues focuses on company examples. What personal ethics matter? Surveys indicate that many students have cheated in classes one way or another, pad their resumes when seeking jobs, and have i mproperly downloaded copyrighted music. Does ethics “begin at home”? Answer: If ethics is to be theoretical or applied only in formal situations, then it means little in practice . Solution and Answer Guide Meiners , The Legal Environment of Business, 14e , 9780357451724 ; Chapter 2: The Court System Table of Contents Answer to Discussion Question ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 Answers to Case Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 5 Answer to Ethics and Social Question ................................ ................................ ........................ 7 Answer to Discussion Question Judges in many nations are trained for their offices in law school. They are hired into the judicial system and work their way up through that system. In th e United States, there is no special training to be a judge; it is an honor bestowed, usually on senior attorneys, or it is an office one runs for in some states. What advantages might the other system have over the U.S. method? Answer: Judges in Europe an d Japan play a quasi -prosecutor role, so they are quite different than U.S. judges. The instruct attorneys on what evidence they want to see. So in that sense, their roles are quite different. Further, judges in most countries do not have as much independe nce as do U.S. judges. Not relying on the legislature or executive to retain a job, and having the power to strike down statutes for violating constitutional rights, is important in the integrity of the U.S. system and its structure. That does not address the issue of competence, but I have never seen a study that tries to address that issue. MEDCONNOISSEURVoordelen van het kopen van samenvattingen bij Stuvia op een rij:
Verzekerd van kwaliteit door reviews
Stuvia-klanten hebben meer dan 700.000 samenvattingen beoordeeld. Zo weet je zeker dat je de beste documenten koopt!
Snel en makkelijk kopen
Je betaalt supersnel en eenmalig met iDeal, creditcard of Stuvia-tegoed voor de samenvatting. Zonder lidmaatschap.
Focus op de essentie
Samenvattingen worden geschreven voor en door anderen. Daarom zijn de samenvattingen altijd betrouwbaar en actueel. Zo kom je snel tot de kern!
Veelgestelde vragen
Wat krijg ik als ik dit document koop?
Je krijgt een PDF, die direct beschikbaar is na je aankoop. Het gekochte document is altijd, overal en oneindig toegankelijk via je profiel.
Tevredenheidsgarantie: hoe werkt dat?
Onze tevredenheidsgarantie zorgt ervoor dat je altijd een studiedocument vindt dat goed bij je past. Je vult een formulier in en onze klantenservice regelt de rest.
Van wie koop ik deze samenvatting?
Stuvia is een marktplaats, je koop dit document dus niet van ons, maar van verkoper MedGeek. Stuvia faciliteert de betaling aan de verkoper.
Zit ik meteen vast aan een abonnement?
Nee, je koopt alleen deze samenvatting voor €17,46. Je zit daarna nergens aan vast.
Is Stuvia te vertrouwen?
4,6 sterren op Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
Afgelopen 30 dagen zijn er 81113 samenvattingen verkocht
Opgericht in 2010, al 14 jaar dé plek om samenvattingen te kopen