Solution Manual For The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners, 2024, All-Chapters 1 - 22 Complete Guide.

The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
ht ht ht ht ht ht




SOLUTION MANUALThe Legal Environment of Business,
ht ht ht ht ht ht




ht 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners, Verified Chapters 1 - 22,
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht




Complete
ht




The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
ht ht ht ht ht ht

, The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
ht ht ht ht ht ht




TABLEOF CONTENTS
ht ht




 Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 2. The Court Systems
ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
ht ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
ht ht ht




 Chapter 10. Contracts
ht ht




 Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 12. Business Organizations
ht ht ht




 Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
ht ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
ht ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
ht ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
ht ht ht




 Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
ht ht ht ht




 Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
ht ht ht




 Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
ht ht ht




 Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
ht ht ht




 Chapter 21. Environmental Law
ht ht ht




 Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht




The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
ht ht ht ht ht ht

, The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
ht ht ht ht ht ht




CHAPTER 1 ht




Table of Contents ht ht


Answer to Discussion Question ....................................................................................................... 1
ht ht ht



Answers to Case Questions ........................................................................................................... 1
ht ht ht



Answers to Ethics and Social Questions ........................................................................................... 3
ht ht ht ht ht




Answer to Discussion Question ht ht ht


Should the common law maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” apply to an immigrant who speakslittle English
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

and was not educated in the United States? How about for a tourist who does not speak English? Everyone knows
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

criminal
ht acts are prohibited, but what about subtler rules that differ across countries and so may be
h t ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

misunderstood by foreigners?
ht ht ht


Answer: It is generally true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have constructive
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

knowledge of the law. Yet, as well known as this rule is, it is surprising how often it is proffered as an
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

excuse. (A Westlaw search cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include: Deluco v. Dezi (Conn.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

Super) (lack of knowledge regarding the state‘s usury laws is no excuse for the inclusion of an illegal
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

interest rate in a sales contract); and Plumlee v. Paddock (ignorance of thefact that the subject matter
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

of the contract was illegal was not excuse). The courts have provided a small exception to the rule
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

when it comes to people in lack of English language skills. Consider Flanery v. Kuska, (defendant did
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

not speak English was advised by a friend that an answer to a complaint was not required); Ramon v.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

Dept. of Transportation, (no English and an inability to understand the law required for an excuse);
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (Ignorance and with the fact that the municipality suffered no hardship
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

in late lawsuit filing was an excuse).
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht




Answers to Case Questions ht ht ht



1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht .................. were cast away in
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

a storm on the high seas . . . and were compelled to put into an open boat................. They had no supply
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht


of water and no supply of food. . . . That on the eighteenth day . . . they.............. suggested that one
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

should be sacrificed to save the rest. . . . That next day . . . they . . . went to the boy ............... put a knife
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

into his throat and killed him . . . the three men fed upon the body .............. of the boy for four days; [then]
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and [they] were rescued. . . . and committed for trial. . . .
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

sopicked up and rescued, but would . have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht


condition, was likely to have died before them ........... The real question in this case [is] whether killing
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

under the conditions set forth ............. be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to be immoral?
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

[Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)]
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht


Answer: This points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated by legal culture--
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

whichdetermines whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

rules of the society--its customs and values. One limit is the extent to which society will allow the formal
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

rules to be imposed when a crime is committed in odd circumstances. Here there was an intentional
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

murder. Does the motive for the murder, the effort to save several lives by sacrificing one
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht




The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
ht ht ht ht ht ht

, The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
ht ht ht ht ht ht




life, make it a crime that should be punished? Not all crimes are treated the same. It also raisesquestions
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

htabout the desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht


There was a precedent for a light sentence in this case in U.S. law: U.S. v. Holmes, 20 F. Cas. 360 (No.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

15383) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers madeit to the
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

htonly lifeboat, which was far too overcrowded. The captain decided to save the women and children and
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

htthrew several men overboard. The lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to indict the captain
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

htfrom murder, only for manslaughter. He got a six month sentence.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht


The British judge in the case here imposed the death penalty upon the person who survived. Thejudge
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

found it difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to make law by his own hand.The
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

Crown reduced the sentence to six months.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht




2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette manufacturers be liable for the
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

serious illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their unavoidably dangerous products, eventhough they post
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

a warning on the package and consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking? [Cipollone v.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

Liggett Group, Inc., 505
ht ht ht ht

U.S. 504 (1992)] ht ht


Answer: The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting of
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

warninglabels on cigarettes, and since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

warned and are not due compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippoline case, since
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

reviewed by the Supreme Court, appears to be of limited impact since the victim was adjudged to have
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

become addicted to cigarettes before the warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette makers were
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

held responsible for all health problems associated with cigarettes, then, like alcohol and other
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

dangerous products, the damages would likely be so high it would effectively ban the products.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

Presumably, in a free society if adults are clearly informed of the risks of products that cannot be
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcohol producers cannot take the dangers out of the
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

products except at the margin by encouraging responsible drinking and the like. Are drugs like
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

c ocaine different?
ht ht




3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-trail bikes. The boys were riding on
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

public streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck. The bikes had clear warning labels on the front
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

stating they were only for off-road use. The manual stated the bikes were not to be usedon public streets.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

The parents sued Honda. The supreme court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a manufacturer
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

liable when children are injured while riding one of its mini-trail bikes on apublic road in violation of
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it unethical to make products like mini-trail bikes children will use
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

when we know accidents like this will happen? [Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655 Sup. Ct,
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

Wash., (1986)]
ht ht


Answer: The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product was safe for
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

intended use. Safety instructions were clear; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

bedangerous-- baseballs are dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

jumpout of them; there is only so much that can be done to make the government the ―national nanny‖
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

asthe Washington Post once said about excessive consumer protection. Parents must accept a high
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

degree of responsible for their own children.
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht




4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age could not work in
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

the battery-making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the battery operation could causeharm to
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

unborn babies. The company was concerned about possible legal liability for injury sufferedby babies of
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

mothers who had worked in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the companypolicy was illegal. It
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

was an “excuse for
ht ht ht ht

denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing the company to be unethical by
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

allowing pregnant women who ignore the warnings to expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto Workers
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)]
ht ht h t ht ht ht ht


Answer: The Court held it a form of sex discrimination to prevent women of child-bearing age from
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

holding the more dangerous jobs. The company argued that it did this to protect itself from
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

possibleliability in case of damage to babies and that the decision was ethical. The replacements for
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

these workers were often men or more senior women, who tended to be higher income workers, so
ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht ht

this
ht




The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
ht ht ht ht ht ht