=
SOLUTION MANUAL
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
by Roger E. Meiners, Verified Chapters 1 - 22, Complete
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
TABLE OF CONTENTS
➢ Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
➢ Chapter 2. The Court Systems
➢ Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
➢ Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
➢ Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
➢ Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
➢ Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
➢ Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
➢ Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
➢ Chapter 10. Contracts
➢ Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
➢ Chapter 12. Business Organizations
➢ Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
➢ Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
➢ Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
➢ Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
➢ Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
➢ Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
➢ Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
➢ Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
➢ Chapter 21. Environmental Law
➢ Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
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? 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 dis dgenerally dtrue dthat dignorance dof dthe d law dis dno dexcuse. dCitizens dare ddeemed dto
dhave dconstructive dknowledge dof dthe dlaw. dYet, das dwell dknown das dthis drule dis, dit dis
dsurprising dhow doften dit dis dproffered das dan dexcuse. d(A dWestlaw dsearch dcases dfinds
dhundreds dof dexamples). dExamples dinclude: dDeluco dv. dDezi d(Conn. dSuper) d(lack dof
dknowledge dregarding dthe dstate‘s dusury dlaws dis dno dexcuse dfor dthe dinclusion dof dan dillegal
dinterest drate din da dsales dcontract); dand dPlumlee dv. dPaddock d(ignorance dof dthedfact dthat
dthe dsubject dmatter dof dthe dcontract dwas dillegal dwas dnot dexcuse). dThe dcourts dhave
dprovided da dsmall dexception dto dthe drule dwhen dit dcomes dto dpeople din dlack dof dEnglish
dlanguage dskills. dConsider dFlanery dv. dKuska, d(defendant ddid dnot dspeak dEnglish dwas dadvised
dby da dfriend dthat dan danswer dto da dcomplaint dwas dnot drequired); dRamon dv. dDept. dof
dTransportation, d(no dEnglish dand dan dinability dto dunderstand dthe dlaw drequired dfor dan
dexcuse); dYurechko dv. dCounty dof dAllegheny, d(Ignorance dand dwith dthe dfact dthat dthe
dmunicipality dsuffered dno dhardship din dlate dlawsuit dfiling dwas dan dexcuse).
Answers dto dCase dQuestions
1. Facts dfrom dan dEnglish djudge’s ddecision din d1884: d“The dcrew dof dan dEnglish dyacht were dcast
daway din
a dstorm don dthe dhigh dseas d. d. d. dand dwere dcompelled dto dput dinto dan dopen dboat. They dhad
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
dno dsupply
of dwater dand dno dsupply dof dfood. d. d. d. dThat don dthe deighteenth dday d. d. d. dthey suggested
dthat done
should dbe dsacrificed dto dsave dthe drest. d. d. d. dThat dnext dday d. d. d. dthey d. d. d. dwent dto dthe dboy
.................................................................................................................................................................................. put da dknife
into dhis dthroat dand dkilled dhim d. d. d. dthe dthree dmen dfed dupon dthe dbody of dthe dboy dfor
dfour ddays; d[then]
the dboat dwas dpicked dup dby da dpassing dvessel, dand d[they] dwere drescued. d. d. d. dand
dcommitted dfor dtrial. d. d. d.
if dthe dmen dhad dnot dfed dupon dthe dbody dof dthe dboy dthey dwould dprobably dnot dhave
dsurvived dto dbe dsodpicked dup dand drescued, dbut dwould have ddied dof dfamine. dThe
dboy, dbeing din da dmuch dweaker
condition, dwas dlikely dto dhave ddied dbefore dthem The dreal dquestion din dthis dcase d[is]
dwhether dkilling
under dthe dconditions dset dforth be dor dbe dnot dmurder.” dDo dyou dconsider dthe dacts dto dbe
dimmoral?
[Regina dv. dDudley dand dStephens, d14 dQueens dBench dDivision d273 d(1884)]
Answer: dThis dpoints dout dthat dthe dlegal dsystem dhas dlimits. dIts dacceptability dis ddictated dby dlegal
dculture--whichddetermines dwhether dlaw dwill dbe denforced, dobeyed, davoided, dor dabused. dIt dis
dlimited dby dthe dinformal drules dof dthe dsociety--its dcustoms dand dvalues. dOne dlimit dis dthe
dextent dto dwhich dsociety dwill dallow dthe dformal drules dto dbe dimposed dwhen da dcrime dis
dcommitted din dodd dcircumstances. dHere dthere dwas dan dintentional dmurder. dDoes dthe
dmotive dfor dthe dmurder, dthe deffort dto dsave dseveral dlives dby dsacrificing done
life, dmake dit da dcrime dthat dshould dbe dpunished? dNot dall dcrimes dare dtreated dthe dsame. d It
dalso draisesdquestions dabout dthe ddesirability dof dnot dgiving djudges dflexibility din dsentencing.
There dwas da dprecedent dfor da dlight dsentence din dthis dcase din dU.S. dlaw: d U.S. dv. dHolmes, d20
dF. dCas. d360 d(No. d15383) d(C.C.E.D. dPa. d1842). dThe dcase dinvolved da dsinking docean dliner.
dSeveral dpassengers dmadedit dto dthe donly dlifeboat, dwhich dwas dfar dtoo dovercrowded. dThe
dcaptain ddecided dto dsave dthe dwomen dand dchildren dand d threw dseveral d men doverboard.
dThe dlifeboat d was drescued. dThe d grand d jury drefused d to dindict dthe dcaptain dfrom dmurder,
donly dfor dmanslaughter. dHe dgot da dsix dmonth dsentence.
The dBritish djudge din dthe dcase dhere dimposed dthe ddeath dpenalty dupon dthe dperson dwho
dsurvived. dThedjudge dfound dit ddifficult dto drule dthat devery dman don dboard dhad dthe dright
dto dmake dlaw dby dhis down dhand.dThe dCrown dreduced dthe dsentence dto dsix dmonths.
2. Smoking dis da dserious dhealth dhazard. dCigarettes dare dlegal. dShould dcigarette dmanufacturers
dbe dliable dfor dthe dserious dillnesses dand duntimely ddeaths dcaused dby dtheir d unavoidably
ddangerous dproducts, devendthough dthey dpost da dwarning don dthe dpackage dand dconsumers
dvoluntarily dassume dthe dhealth drisks dby dsmoking? d[Cipollone dv. dLiggett dGroup, dInc., d505
dU.S. d504 d(1992)]
Answer: dThe dgeneral drule dthat dexists dnow dis dthat dsince dthe dgovernment dhas dordered dthe
dposting dof dwarningdlabels don dcigarettes, dand dsince dthe ddangers dof dsmoking dare dwell
dknown, dconsumers dhave dbeen dwarned dand dare dnot ddue dcompensation dif dthey dkill
dthemselves dby dsmoking. dThe d Cippoline dcase, dsince dreviewed dby dthe dSupreme dCourt,
dappears dto dbe dof dlimited dimpact dsince dthe d victim dwas dadjudged dto dhave dbecome
daddicted dto dcigarettes dbefore dthe dwarning dlabel dwas dordered din d1964. dIf dcigarette
dmakers dwere dheld dresponsible dfor dall dhealth dproblems dassociated dwith dcigarettes, dthen,
dlike dalcohol dand dother ddangerous dproducts, dthe ddamages dwould dlikely dbe dso dhigh dit
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
SOLUTION MANUAL
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
by Roger E. Meiners, Verified Chapters 1 - 22, Complete
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
TABLE OF CONTENTS
➢ Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
➢ Chapter 2. The Court Systems
➢ Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
➢ Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
➢ Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
➢ Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
➢ Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
➢ Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
➢ Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
➢ Chapter 10. Contracts
➢ Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
➢ Chapter 12. Business Organizations
➢ Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
➢ Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
➢ Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
➢ Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
➢ Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
➢ Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
➢ Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
➢ Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
➢ Chapter 21. Environmental Law
➢ Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
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? 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 dis dgenerally dtrue dthat dignorance dof dthe d law dis dno dexcuse. dCitizens dare ddeemed dto
dhave dconstructive dknowledge dof dthe dlaw. dYet, das dwell dknown das dthis drule dis, dit dis
dsurprising dhow doften dit dis dproffered das dan dexcuse. d(A dWestlaw dsearch dcases dfinds
dhundreds dof dexamples). dExamples dinclude: dDeluco dv. dDezi d(Conn. dSuper) d(lack dof
dknowledge dregarding dthe dstate‘s dusury dlaws dis dno dexcuse dfor dthe dinclusion dof dan dillegal
dinterest drate din da dsales dcontract); dand dPlumlee dv. dPaddock d(ignorance dof dthedfact dthat
dthe dsubject dmatter dof dthe dcontract dwas dillegal dwas dnot dexcuse). dThe dcourts dhave
dprovided da dsmall dexception dto dthe drule dwhen dit dcomes dto dpeople din dlack dof dEnglish
dlanguage dskills. dConsider dFlanery dv. dKuska, d(defendant ddid dnot dspeak dEnglish dwas dadvised
dby da dfriend dthat dan danswer dto da dcomplaint dwas dnot drequired); dRamon dv. dDept. dof
dTransportation, d(no dEnglish dand dan dinability dto dunderstand dthe dlaw drequired dfor dan
dexcuse); dYurechko dv. dCounty dof dAllegheny, d(Ignorance dand dwith dthe dfact dthat dthe
dmunicipality dsuffered dno dhardship din dlate dlawsuit dfiling dwas dan dexcuse).
Answers dto dCase dQuestions
1. Facts dfrom dan dEnglish djudge’s ddecision din d1884: d“The dcrew dof dan dEnglish dyacht were dcast
daway din
a dstorm don dthe dhigh dseas d. d. d. dand dwere dcompelled dto dput dinto dan dopen dboat. They dhad
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
dno dsupply
of dwater dand dno dsupply dof dfood. d. d. d. dThat don dthe deighteenth dday d. d. d. dthey suggested
dthat done
should dbe dsacrificed dto dsave dthe drest. d. d. d. dThat dnext dday d. d. d. dthey d. d. d. dwent dto dthe dboy
.................................................................................................................................................................................. put da dknife
into dhis dthroat dand dkilled dhim d. d. d. dthe dthree dmen dfed dupon dthe dbody of dthe dboy dfor
dfour ddays; d[then]
the dboat dwas dpicked dup dby da dpassing dvessel, dand d[they] dwere drescued. d. d. d. dand
dcommitted dfor dtrial. d. d. d.
if dthe dmen dhad dnot dfed dupon dthe dbody dof dthe dboy dthey dwould dprobably dnot dhave
dsurvived dto dbe dsodpicked dup dand drescued, dbut dwould have ddied dof dfamine. dThe
dboy, dbeing din da dmuch dweaker
condition, dwas dlikely dto dhave ddied dbefore dthem The dreal dquestion din dthis dcase d[is]
dwhether dkilling
under dthe dconditions dset dforth be dor dbe dnot dmurder.” dDo dyou dconsider dthe dacts dto dbe
dimmoral?
[Regina dv. dDudley dand dStephens, d14 dQueens dBench dDivision d273 d(1884)]
Answer: dThis dpoints dout dthat dthe dlegal dsystem dhas dlimits. dIts dacceptability dis ddictated dby dlegal
dculture--whichddetermines dwhether dlaw dwill dbe denforced, dobeyed, davoided, dor dabused. dIt dis
dlimited dby dthe dinformal drules dof dthe dsociety--its dcustoms dand dvalues. dOne dlimit dis dthe
dextent dto dwhich dsociety dwill dallow dthe dformal drules dto dbe dimposed dwhen da dcrime dis
dcommitted din dodd dcircumstances. dHere dthere dwas dan dintentional dmurder. dDoes dthe
dmotive dfor dthe dmurder, dthe deffort dto dsave dseveral dlives dby dsacrificing done
life, dmake dit da dcrime dthat dshould dbe dpunished? dNot dall dcrimes dare dtreated dthe dsame. d It
dalso draisesdquestions dabout dthe ddesirability dof dnot dgiving djudges dflexibility din dsentencing.
There dwas da dprecedent dfor da dlight dsentence din dthis dcase din dU.S. dlaw: d U.S. dv. dHolmes, d20
dF. dCas. d360 d(No. d15383) d(C.C.E.D. dPa. d1842). dThe dcase dinvolved da dsinking docean dliner.
dSeveral dpassengers dmadedit dto dthe donly dlifeboat, dwhich dwas dfar dtoo dovercrowded. dThe
dcaptain ddecided dto dsave dthe dwomen dand dchildren dand d threw dseveral d men doverboard.
dThe dlifeboat d was drescued. dThe d grand d jury drefused d to dindict dthe dcaptain dfrom dmurder,
donly dfor dmanslaughter. dHe dgot da dsix dmonth dsentence.
The dBritish djudge din dthe dcase dhere dimposed dthe ddeath dpenalty dupon dthe dperson dwho
dsurvived. dThedjudge dfound dit ddifficult dto drule dthat devery dman don dboard dhad dthe dright
dto dmake dlaw dby dhis down dhand.dThe dCrown dreduced dthe dsentence dto dsix dmonths.
2. Smoking dis da dserious dhealth dhazard. dCigarettes dare dlegal. dShould dcigarette dmanufacturers
dbe dliable dfor dthe dserious dillnesses dand duntimely ddeaths dcaused dby dtheir d unavoidably
ddangerous dproducts, devendthough dthey dpost da dwarning don dthe dpackage dand dconsumers
dvoluntarily dassume dthe dhealth drisks dby dsmoking? d[Cipollone dv. dLiggett dGroup, dInc., d505
dU.S. d504 d(1992)]
Answer: dThe dgeneral drule dthat dexists dnow dis dthat dsince dthe dgovernment dhas dordered dthe
dposting dof dwarningdlabels don dcigarettes, dand dsince dthe ddangers dof dsmoking dare dwell
dknown, dconsumers dhave dbeen dwarned dand dare dnot ddue dcompensation dif dthey dkill
dthemselves dby dsmoking. dThe d Cippoline dcase, dsince dreviewed dby dthe dSupreme dCourt,
dappears dto dbe dof dlimited dimpact dsince dthe d victim dwas dadjudged dto dhave dbecome
daddicted dto dcigarettes dbefore dthe dwarning dlabel dwas dordered din d1964. dIf dcigarette
dmakers dwere dheld dresponsible dfor dall dhealth dproblems dassociated dwith dcigarettes, dthen,
dlike dalcohol dand dother ddangerous dproducts, dthe ddamages dwould dlikely dbe dso dhigh dit
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
