SOLUTION MANUAL - Business Law
with UCC Applications 16th Edition by
Paul A. Sukys
ALL CHAPTERS 1-34| VERIFIED
STUDY GUIDE WITH Q&As
Ar
ch
Do
1|Page
c
, PART 1 ETHICS, LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Chapter 1 Ethics, Social Responsibility, and the Law
Case in Point Questions
(Note: The answers to these questions can be found in the Case in Point features at the opening of each chapter
in BLUCCA 16 or in the text of each chapter. Consequently, to ensure accuracy, the answers are taken directly
from the Cases in Point feature and/or the text. Student answers should reflect this, but should either be written
in the student‗s own words or, when quoted, cited appropriately.)
1. Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical options covered in
Chapter 1.
2. Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical options covered in
Chapter 1.
3. Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical options covered in
Chapter 1.
4. Yes. Max Weber argues that two-levels of morality exist, represented by the ethic of ultimate ends for
individuals and an ethic of responsibility for national leaders. The ethic of ultimate ends must be practiced by
individuals because individuals can never completely foresee ―the ultimate ends of their actions. Therefore,
individuals must obey absolute moral precepts, such as ―always help the poor and less fortunate, or "turn the
other cheek," or "always tell the truth, despite the fact that the ultimate consequences of those actions are
unclear or uncomfortable.
On the other hand, the ethic of responsibility demands that moral actors—in this case, national leaders—must
consider their responsibilities to those people who depend on those leaders for safety and security. So, for
example, if a neighboring nation is belligerent, aggressive, or determined to fight ancient cultural, religious,
and ethnic wars, the leaders of the first nation cannot ignore that threat, as much as they might want to. In
short, they are not permitted to ―turn the other cheek because to do so would endanger the innocent people
they have the duty to protect. Unfortunately, many national leaders fail to see this distinction. The leaders of
the United States have been especially guilty of this shortsightedness.
5. The existence of the social contract permits people to live together in peace and harmony, but it does
not permit anyone, not even the leader, to violate the core rights of life and security. Should a leader
consistently violate core rights, then the people have a duty to demand that such oppressive and dangerous
behavior end.
Questions for Review and Discussion
1. The law is a set of rules made by the government to promote stability, harmony, and justice. Morality
involves the values that are the foundation for moral decision making. Ethics is a way to figure out what those
values might be.
2. Traditional natural law sees law as originating from an objective, superior force that stands outside the
everyday experience of most people. Historically, natural law had its origin in the classical Judeo-Christian
belief in a Divinity that created, controls, and rules the physical universe according to a set of universal laws
Ar
that came from the will of the Divinity. Similarly, modern natural law also sees law as originating from an
objective origin point; however, that origin point is neither transcendent nor supernatural but is, instead,
ch
conceived of by the human mind. Thus, the source of natural law comes from within the mind of social
Do
2|Page
c
,philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Jean Paul Sartre, each of
whom claimed to have found the correct objective standard of human morality.
3. Non-judgmentalism is the tendency to be tolerant of every type of behavior even the most
reprehensible acts imaginable, so that, in turn, your own most reprehensible actions will not be judged by
others. In contrast, hyper-intolerance can be defined as open hostility to the views, ideas, traditions, and
principles of belief held and practiced by others.
4. The social contract option holds that right and wrong are measured by the obligations imposed on
everyone by an implied agreement or contract among all the people within a particular social system.
5. The steps in applying utilitarianism are as follows:
a. The action to be evaluated should be stated in unemotional, general terms. For example, ―stealing
another person‗s property is emotional language;
―confiscating property for one‗s own use is somewhat less emotional.
b. Every person or class of people that will be affected by the action must be identified.
c. Good and bad consequences in relation to those people affected must be considered.
d. All alternatives to the action stated in step 1 must be considered.
e. Once step 4 has been carried out, a conclusion must be reached. Whichever alternative creates the
greatest good for the greatest number of people affected by the action is the one that ought to be taken.
6. The rational option is a philosophical theory that asserts unequivocally that human beings, because of
their innate capacity for rational thought, can determine the nature and application of ethical values. The theory
assumes that because all human beings are rational, all human beings ought to have the same ethical values.
Therefore, rational ethics can establish universal rules of behavior that always apply to all people. For this
reason, the rational option is often referred to as objective ethics or normative ethics. Since the rational option
also focuses on duties rather than rights, it is also called deontological ethics. In its pure form, the word
deontological means "words of duty" coming from the Greek words deon, duty, and logos, word or utterance.
7. Many of the misunderstandings about moral decisions within the world today exist because people do
not understand the dual nature of international morality. The twentieth century philosopher, Max Weber
explains the problem in his essay, "Politics as a Vocation." In that essay, Weber argues that, often people make
the error of assuming that political morality and personal morality are identical. Instead, Weber proposes a
dual system of morality represented by the "ethic of ultimate ends" and the "ethic of responsibility." The "ethic
of ultimate ends" must be practiced by individuals while the "ethic of responsibility" must be practiced by
national leaders.
8. Corporations owe society a level of responsibility because the government has granted them certain
legal advantages.
9. Our society needs law and the legal system to give it structure, harmony, predictability, and justice.
Ar
10. The law and ethics can sometimes benefit from anarchy, but only when what emerges from that period
of anarchy is a system supported by legal and ethical harmony. When the forces of human energy and justice
ch
are harnessed properly such harmony may result. Energy is found in a society that manages to redirect the
collective human will toward the welfare of the entire species, instead of toward individual or corporate
Do
3|Page
c
, survival measured only by monetary gain. Justice is present when all people are treated equally based on an
intangible quality, like fairness, that has nothing to do with money.
Cases for Analysis
Special Directions to the Instructor: It is virtually impossible to predict the wide variety of answers that
students will provide for the ethical cases outlined at the end of Chapter 1. Therefore, the instructor should not
be looking for ―right and ―wrong answers in the conventional sense. Instead, the instructor should look to
see that the ethical theories are applied correctly and consistently.
1. Using rational ethics, the governor‗s actions must follow all three elements of the categorical
Imperative. First, since rational beings recognize that they do not want to be harmed, everyone has a duty to
refrain from hurting all other rational beings. This is nothing more than a rational reformulation of the Golden
Rule, which states, that no one should do anything that they would not want done to themselves. Second, to
ensure that other rational beings will not be harmed, individuals understand that they must not perform any act
that they would not want to become universally acceptable conduct. Third, rational beings would also object to
any action that would treat autonomous beings as a means to an end. In this case, the governor‗s decision to
rescind the mask wearing mandates follows all three elements.
In contrast, using rational ethics, the parents‗ actions appear to violate the second element of the Categorical
Imperative because we would not want their actions against the authority of the governor‗s actions to become
universally acceptable conduct. Accept all well-reasoned answers as to the students‗ preference.
2. In his essay, "Politics as a Vocation," Max Weber states that the ethic of responsibility demands that
governmental leaders must always keep their citizens safe from harm. In this case both the president and the
governor are attempting to keep their citizens safe. However, the governor is directly responsible for the
citizens of his state. In that capacity, knowing what he knows about the people and the conditions in Florida,
he has decided to forbid mandates for wearing masks in schools. For his part, the president has decided not to
countermand that order. Since the governor decided to keep the citizens of Florida safe by rescinding the
mandate and the president took no action to countermand that order, both leaders are doing essentially the
same thing, and both can be seen as following Weber‗s directive. Biden's decision not to countermand the
governor‗s order means that he has a good grasp of Weber‗s ideas as expressed in ―Politics as a Vocation.
3. Using rational ethics, the actions by the administration of MIT must follow all three elements of the
categorical Imperative. First, since rational beings recognize that they do not want to be harmed, everyone has
a duty to refrain from hurting all other rational beings. This is nothing more than a rational reformulation of the
Golden Rule, which states that no one should do anything that they would not want done to themselves.
Second, to ensure that other rational beings will not be harmed, individuals understand that they must not
perform any act that they would not want to become universally acceptable conduct. Third, rational beings
would also object to any action that would treat autonomous beings as a means to an end. In this case, the
actions by the administration of MIT violate all three elements of the Categorical Imperative. First, since the
administrators at MIT, as rational beings, would not want to be disrespected the way that they disrespected
Abbott when they cancelled his talk. Second, as rational beings, the administrators would not want to have
their conduct of rejecting an individual simply because of that person‗s identity as a member of a group, to
become a universal law. Finally, as rational beings, the administrators would not want to be treated as a means
to an end. This is what they did to Abbott by cancelling his presentation as a means to an end, namely ending a
controversy on campus that put the administrators in an awkward position.
Ar
The steps in applying utilitarianism are as follows:
ch
Do
4|Page
c
with UCC Applications 16th Edition by
Paul A. Sukys
ALL CHAPTERS 1-34| VERIFIED
STUDY GUIDE WITH Q&As
Ar
ch
Do
1|Page
c
, PART 1 ETHICS, LAW, AND THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM
Chapter 1 Ethics, Social Responsibility, and the Law
Case in Point Questions
(Note: The answers to these questions can be found in the Case in Point features at the opening of each chapter
in BLUCCA 16 or in the text of each chapter. Consequently, to ensure accuracy, the answers are taken directly
from the Cases in Point feature and/or the text. Student answers should reflect this, but should either be written
in the student‗s own words or, when quoted, cited appropriately.)
1. Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical options covered in
Chapter 1.
2. Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical options covered in
Chapter 1.
3. Answers will vary. Accept all well-reasoned answers based on one of the ethical options covered in
Chapter 1.
4. Yes. Max Weber argues that two-levels of morality exist, represented by the ethic of ultimate ends for
individuals and an ethic of responsibility for national leaders. The ethic of ultimate ends must be practiced by
individuals because individuals can never completely foresee ―the ultimate ends of their actions. Therefore,
individuals must obey absolute moral precepts, such as ―always help the poor and less fortunate, or "turn the
other cheek," or "always tell the truth, despite the fact that the ultimate consequences of those actions are
unclear or uncomfortable.
On the other hand, the ethic of responsibility demands that moral actors—in this case, national leaders—must
consider their responsibilities to those people who depend on those leaders for safety and security. So, for
example, if a neighboring nation is belligerent, aggressive, or determined to fight ancient cultural, religious,
and ethnic wars, the leaders of the first nation cannot ignore that threat, as much as they might want to. In
short, they are not permitted to ―turn the other cheek because to do so would endanger the innocent people
they have the duty to protect. Unfortunately, many national leaders fail to see this distinction. The leaders of
the United States have been especially guilty of this shortsightedness.
5. The existence of the social contract permits people to live together in peace and harmony, but it does
not permit anyone, not even the leader, to violate the core rights of life and security. Should a leader
consistently violate core rights, then the people have a duty to demand that such oppressive and dangerous
behavior end.
Questions for Review and Discussion
1. The law is a set of rules made by the government to promote stability, harmony, and justice. Morality
involves the values that are the foundation for moral decision making. Ethics is a way to figure out what those
values might be.
2. Traditional natural law sees law as originating from an objective, superior force that stands outside the
everyday experience of most people. Historically, natural law had its origin in the classical Judeo-Christian
belief in a Divinity that created, controls, and rules the physical universe according to a set of universal laws
Ar
that came from the will of the Divinity. Similarly, modern natural law also sees law as originating from an
objective origin point; however, that origin point is neither transcendent nor supernatural but is, instead,
ch
conceived of by the human mind. Thus, the source of natural law comes from within the mind of social
Do
2|Page
c
,philosophers, such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and Jean Paul Sartre, each of
whom claimed to have found the correct objective standard of human morality.
3. Non-judgmentalism is the tendency to be tolerant of every type of behavior even the most
reprehensible acts imaginable, so that, in turn, your own most reprehensible actions will not be judged by
others. In contrast, hyper-intolerance can be defined as open hostility to the views, ideas, traditions, and
principles of belief held and practiced by others.
4. The social contract option holds that right and wrong are measured by the obligations imposed on
everyone by an implied agreement or contract among all the people within a particular social system.
5. The steps in applying utilitarianism are as follows:
a. The action to be evaluated should be stated in unemotional, general terms. For example, ―stealing
another person‗s property is emotional language;
―confiscating property for one‗s own use is somewhat less emotional.
b. Every person or class of people that will be affected by the action must be identified.
c. Good and bad consequences in relation to those people affected must be considered.
d. All alternatives to the action stated in step 1 must be considered.
e. Once step 4 has been carried out, a conclusion must be reached. Whichever alternative creates the
greatest good for the greatest number of people affected by the action is the one that ought to be taken.
6. The rational option is a philosophical theory that asserts unequivocally that human beings, because of
their innate capacity for rational thought, can determine the nature and application of ethical values. The theory
assumes that because all human beings are rational, all human beings ought to have the same ethical values.
Therefore, rational ethics can establish universal rules of behavior that always apply to all people. For this
reason, the rational option is often referred to as objective ethics or normative ethics. Since the rational option
also focuses on duties rather than rights, it is also called deontological ethics. In its pure form, the word
deontological means "words of duty" coming from the Greek words deon, duty, and logos, word or utterance.
7. Many of the misunderstandings about moral decisions within the world today exist because people do
not understand the dual nature of international morality. The twentieth century philosopher, Max Weber
explains the problem in his essay, "Politics as a Vocation." In that essay, Weber argues that, often people make
the error of assuming that political morality and personal morality are identical. Instead, Weber proposes a
dual system of morality represented by the "ethic of ultimate ends" and the "ethic of responsibility." The "ethic
of ultimate ends" must be practiced by individuals while the "ethic of responsibility" must be practiced by
national leaders.
8. Corporations owe society a level of responsibility because the government has granted them certain
legal advantages.
9. Our society needs law and the legal system to give it structure, harmony, predictability, and justice.
Ar
10. The law and ethics can sometimes benefit from anarchy, but only when what emerges from that period
of anarchy is a system supported by legal and ethical harmony. When the forces of human energy and justice
ch
are harnessed properly such harmony may result. Energy is found in a society that manages to redirect the
collective human will toward the welfare of the entire species, instead of toward individual or corporate
Do
3|Page
c
, survival measured only by monetary gain. Justice is present when all people are treated equally based on an
intangible quality, like fairness, that has nothing to do with money.
Cases for Analysis
Special Directions to the Instructor: It is virtually impossible to predict the wide variety of answers that
students will provide for the ethical cases outlined at the end of Chapter 1. Therefore, the instructor should not
be looking for ―right and ―wrong answers in the conventional sense. Instead, the instructor should look to
see that the ethical theories are applied correctly and consistently.
1. Using rational ethics, the governor‗s actions must follow all three elements of the categorical
Imperative. First, since rational beings recognize that they do not want to be harmed, everyone has a duty to
refrain from hurting all other rational beings. This is nothing more than a rational reformulation of the Golden
Rule, which states, that no one should do anything that they would not want done to themselves. Second, to
ensure that other rational beings will not be harmed, individuals understand that they must not perform any act
that they would not want to become universally acceptable conduct. Third, rational beings would also object to
any action that would treat autonomous beings as a means to an end. In this case, the governor‗s decision to
rescind the mask wearing mandates follows all three elements.
In contrast, using rational ethics, the parents‗ actions appear to violate the second element of the Categorical
Imperative because we would not want their actions against the authority of the governor‗s actions to become
universally acceptable conduct. Accept all well-reasoned answers as to the students‗ preference.
2. In his essay, "Politics as a Vocation," Max Weber states that the ethic of responsibility demands that
governmental leaders must always keep their citizens safe from harm. In this case both the president and the
governor are attempting to keep their citizens safe. However, the governor is directly responsible for the
citizens of his state. In that capacity, knowing what he knows about the people and the conditions in Florida,
he has decided to forbid mandates for wearing masks in schools. For his part, the president has decided not to
countermand that order. Since the governor decided to keep the citizens of Florida safe by rescinding the
mandate and the president took no action to countermand that order, both leaders are doing essentially the
same thing, and both can be seen as following Weber‗s directive. Biden's decision not to countermand the
governor‗s order means that he has a good grasp of Weber‗s ideas as expressed in ―Politics as a Vocation.
3. Using rational ethics, the actions by the administration of MIT must follow all three elements of the
categorical Imperative. First, since rational beings recognize that they do not want to be harmed, everyone has
a duty to refrain from hurting all other rational beings. This is nothing more than a rational reformulation of the
Golden Rule, which states that no one should do anything that they would not want done to themselves.
Second, to ensure that other rational beings will not be harmed, individuals understand that they must not
perform any act that they would not want to become universally acceptable conduct. Third, rational beings
would also object to any action that would treat autonomous beings as a means to an end. In this case, the
actions by the administration of MIT violate all three elements of the Categorical Imperative. First, since the
administrators at MIT, as rational beings, would not want to be disrespected the way that they disrespected
Abbott when they cancelled his talk. Second, as rational beings, the administrators would not want to have
their conduct of rejecting an individual simply because of that person‗s identity as a member of a group, to
become a universal law. Finally, as rational beings, the administrators would not want to be treated as a means
to an end. This is what they did to Abbott by cancelling his presentation as a means to an end, namely ending a
controversy on campus that put the administrators in an awkward position.
Ar
The steps in applying utilitarianism are as follows:
ch
Do
4|Page
c
