=
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 fis fgenerally ftrue fthat fignorance fof fthe f law fis fno fexcuse. fCitizens fare fdeemed fto fhave
fconstructive fknowledge fof fthe flaw. fYet, fas fwell fknown f as fthis frule fis, fit fis fsurprising fhow
foften fit fis fproffered fas fan fexcuse. f(A fWestlaw fsearch fcases ffinds fhundreds fof fexamples).
fExamples finclude: fDeluco fv. fDezi f(Conn. fSuper) f(lack fof fknowledge fregarding fthe fstate‘s fusury
flaws fis fno fexcuse ffor fthe finclusion fof fan fillegal finterest frate fin fa fsales fcontract); fand fPlumlee
fv. fPaddock f(ignorance fof ftheffact fthat fthe fsubject fmatter fof fthe fcontract fwas fillegal fwas fnot
fexcuse). fThe fcourts fhave fprovided fa fsmall fexception fto fthe frule fwhen fit fcomes fto fpeople fin
flack fof fEnglish flanguage fskills. fConsider fFlanery fv. fKuska, f(defendant fdid fnot fspeak fEnglish
fwas fadvised fby fa ffriend fthat fan fanswer fto fa fcomplaint fwas fnot frequired); fRamon fv. fDept. fof
fTransportation, f(no fEnglish fand fan finability fto funderstand fthe flaw frequired ffor fan fexcuse);
f Yurechko fv. fCounty fof fAllegheny, f(Ignorance fand f with fthe ffact fthat f the fmunicipality fsuffered
fno fhardship fin flate flawsuit ffiling fwas fan fexcuse).
Answers fto fCase fQuestions
1. Facts ffrom fan fEnglish fjudge’s fdecision fin f1884: f“The fcrew fof fan fEnglish fyacht .. were fcast faway fin
a fstorm fon fthe fhigh fseas f. f. f. fand fwere fcompelled fto fput finto fan fopen fboat. They fhad fno
fsupply
of fwater fand fno fsupply fof ffood. f. f. f. fThat fon fthe feighteenth fday f. f. f. fthey suggested fthat
fone
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
should fbe fsacrificed fto fsave fthe frest. f. f. f. fThat fnext fday f. f. f. fthey f. f. f. fwent fto fthe fboy put fa
fknife
into fhis fthroat fand fkilled fhim f. f. f. fthe fthree fmen ffed fupon fthe fbody of fthe fboy ffor ffour fdays;
f[then]
the fboat fwas fpicked fup fby fa fpassing fvessel, fand f[they] fwere frescued. f. f. f. fand fcommitted ffor
ftrial. f. f. f.
if fthe fmen fhad fnot ffed fupon fthe fbody fof fthe fboy fthey fwould fprobably fnot fhave fsurvived
fto fbe fsofpicked fup fand frescued, fbut fwould have fdied fof ffamine. fThe fboy, fbeing fin fa
fmuch fweaker
condition, fwas flikely fto fhave fdied fbefore fthem .. The freal fquestion fin fthis fcase f[is] fwhether fkilling
under fthe fconditions fset fforth.... be for fbe fnot fmurder.” fDo fyou fconsider fthe facts fto fbe fimmoral?
[Regina fv. fDudley fand fStephens, f14 fQueens fBench fDivision f273 f(1884)]
Answer: fThis fpoints fout fthat fthe flegal fsystem fhas flimits. fIts facceptability fis fdictated fby flegal
fculture--whichfdetermines f whether flaw fwill fbe fenforced, fobeyed, favoided, for fabused. fIt fis
flimited fby fthe finformal frules fof fthe fsociety--its fcustoms fand fvalues. fOne flimit fis fthe fextent fto
fwhich fsociety fwill fallow fthe fformal frules fto fbe fimposed fwhen fa fcrime fis fcommitted fin fodd
fcircumstances. fHere fthere fwas fan fintentional fmurder. fDoes fthe fmotive ffor fthe fmurder, fthe
feffort fto fsave fseveral flives fby fsacrificing fone
life, fmake fit fa fcrime fthat fshould fbe fpunished? fNot fall fcrimes fare ftreated fthe fsame. f It falso fraises
fquestions fabout fthe fdesirability fof fnot fgiving fjudges fflexibility fin fsentencing.
There fwas fa fprecedent ffor fa flight fsentence fin fthis fcase fin fU.S. flaw: f U.S. fv. fHolmes, f20 fF. fCas.
f360 f(No. f15383) f(C.C.E.D. fPa. f1842). fThe fcase finvolved fa fsinking focean fliner. fSeveral fpassengers
fmadefit fto fthe fonly flifeboat, f which fwas ffar ftoo fovercrowded. f The fcaptain fdecided fto fsave fthe
fwomen fand fchildren f and f threw f several f men f overboard. f The f lifeboat f was f rescued. f The f grand
f jury frefused f to findict fthe fcaptain f from f murder, fonly ffor fmanslaughter. fHe fgot fa fsix f month
fsentence.
The fBritish fjudge fin fthe fcase fhere fimposed fthe fdeath fpenalty fupon fthe fperson fwho
fsurvived. fThe fjudge ffound fit fdifficult fto frule fthat fevery fman fon fboard fhad fthe fright fto
fmake flaw fby fhis fown fhand.fThe fCrown freduced fthe fsentence f to fsix f months.
2. Smoking fis fa fserious fhealth fhazard. fCigarettes fare flegal. fShould fcigarette fmanufacturers fbe
fliable ffor fthe fserious fillnesses fand funtimely fdeaths fcaused fby ftheir funavoidably fdangerous
fproducts, fevenfthough fthey fpost fa fwarning fon fthe fpackage fand fconsumers fvoluntarily fassume
fthe fhealth frisks fby fsmoking? f[Cipollone fv. fLiggett fGroup, fInc., f505 fU.S. f504 f(1992)]
Answer: fThe fgeneral frule fthat fexists fnow fis fthat fsince fthe fgovernment fhas fordered fthe fposting fof
fwarningflabels fon fcigarettes, fand fsince fthe fdangers fof fsmoking fare fwell fknown, fconsumers
fhave fbeen fwarned fand fare fnot fdue fcompensation fif fthey fkill fthemselves fby fsmoking. fThe
f Cippoline fcase, fsince freviewed fby fthe fSupreme fCourt, fappears fto fbe fof flimited fimpact fsince
fthe f victim fwas fadjudged fto fhave fbecome faddicted fto fcigarettes fbefore fthe f warning flabel fwas
fordered fin f1964. fIf fcigarette fmakers fwere fheld fresponsible ffor fall fhealth fproblems fassociated
fwith fcigarettes, fthen, flike falcohol fand fother fdangerous fproducts, fthe fdamages fwould flikely fbe
fso fhigh fit fwould feffectively fban fthe fproducts. fPresumably, fin fa ffree fsociety fif fadults fare
fclearly finformed fof fthe frisks fof fproducts fthat fcannot fbe fmade fsafe, fthey faccept fthe frisk.
fTobacco fand falcohol fproducers fcannot ftake fthe fdangers fout fof fthe fproducts fexcept fat fthe
fmargin fby fencouraging fresponsible fdrinking fand fthe flike. fAre fdrugs flike fcocaine fdifferent?
3. Two feight-year-old fboys fwere fseriously finjured fwhen friding fHonda fmini-trail fbikes. fThe fboys
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 fis fgenerally ftrue fthat fignorance fof fthe f law fis fno fexcuse. fCitizens fare fdeemed fto fhave
fconstructive fknowledge fof fthe flaw. fYet, fas fwell fknown f as fthis frule fis, fit fis fsurprising fhow
foften fit fis fproffered fas fan fexcuse. f(A fWestlaw fsearch fcases ffinds fhundreds fof fexamples).
fExamples finclude: fDeluco fv. fDezi f(Conn. fSuper) f(lack fof fknowledge fregarding fthe fstate‘s fusury
flaws fis fno fexcuse ffor fthe finclusion fof fan fillegal finterest frate fin fa fsales fcontract); fand fPlumlee
fv. fPaddock f(ignorance fof ftheffact fthat fthe fsubject fmatter fof fthe fcontract fwas fillegal fwas fnot
fexcuse). fThe fcourts fhave fprovided fa fsmall fexception fto fthe frule fwhen fit fcomes fto fpeople fin
flack fof fEnglish flanguage fskills. fConsider fFlanery fv. fKuska, f(defendant fdid fnot fspeak fEnglish
fwas fadvised fby fa ffriend fthat fan fanswer fto fa fcomplaint fwas fnot frequired); fRamon fv. fDept. fof
fTransportation, f(no fEnglish fand fan finability fto funderstand fthe flaw frequired ffor fan fexcuse);
f Yurechko fv. fCounty fof fAllegheny, f(Ignorance fand f with fthe ffact fthat f the fmunicipality fsuffered
fno fhardship fin flate flawsuit ffiling fwas fan fexcuse).
Answers fto fCase fQuestions
1. Facts ffrom fan fEnglish fjudge’s fdecision fin f1884: f“The fcrew fof fan fEnglish fyacht .. were fcast faway fin
a fstorm fon fthe fhigh fseas f. f. f. fand fwere fcompelled fto fput finto fan fopen fboat. They fhad fno
fsupply
of fwater fand fno fsupply fof ffood. f. f. f. fThat fon fthe feighteenth fday f. f. f. fthey suggested fthat
fone
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
should fbe fsacrificed fto fsave fthe frest. f. f. f. fThat fnext fday f. f. f. fthey f. f. f. fwent fto fthe fboy put fa
fknife
into fhis fthroat fand fkilled fhim f. f. f. fthe fthree fmen ffed fupon fthe fbody of fthe fboy ffor ffour fdays;
f[then]
the fboat fwas fpicked fup fby fa fpassing fvessel, fand f[they] fwere frescued. f. f. f. fand fcommitted ffor
ftrial. f. f. f.
if fthe fmen fhad fnot ffed fupon fthe fbody fof fthe fboy fthey fwould fprobably fnot fhave fsurvived
fto fbe fsofpicked fup fand frescued, fbut fwould have fdied fof ffamine. fThe fboy, fbeing fin fa
fmuch fweaker
condition, fwas flikely fto fhave fdied fbefore fthem .. The freal fquestion fin fthis fcase f[is] fwhether fkilling
under fthe fconditions fset fforth.... be for fbe fnot fmurder.” fDo fyou fconsider fthe facts fto fbe fimmoral?
[Regina fv. fDudley fand fStephens, f14 fQueens fBench fDivision f273 f(1884)]
Answer: fThis fpoints fout fthat fthe flegal fsystem fhas flimits. fIts facceptability fis fdictated fby flegal
fculture--whichfdetermines f whether flaw fwill fbe fenforced, fobeyed, favoided, for fabused. fIt fis
flimited fby fthe finformal frules fof fthe fsociety--its fcustoms fand fvalues. fOne flimit fis fthe fextent fto
fwhich fsociety fwill fallow fthe fformal frules fto fbe fimposed fwhen fa fcrime fis fcommitted fin fodd
fcircumstances. fHere fthere fwas fan fintentional fmurder. fDoes fthe fmotive ffor fthe fmurder, fthe
feffort fto fsave fseveral flives fby fsacrificing fone
life, fmake fit fa fcrime fthat fshould fbe fpunished? fNot fall fcrimes fare ftreated fthe fsame. f It falso fraises
fquestions fabout fthe fdesirability fof fnot fgiving fjudges fflexibility fin fsentencing.
There fwas fa fprecedent ffor fa flight fsentence fin fthis fcase fin fU.S. flaw: f U.S. fv. fHolmes, f20 fF. fCas.
f360 f(No. f15383) f(C.C.E.D. fPa. f1842). fThe fcase finvolved fa fsinking focean fliner. fSeveral fpassengers
fmadefit fto fthe fonly flifeboat, f which fwas ffar ftoo fovercrowded. f The fcaptain fdecided fto fsave fthe
fwomen fand fchildren f and f threw f several f men f overboard. f The f lifeboat f was f rescued. f The f grand
f jury frefused f to findict fthe fcaptain f from f murder, fonly ffor fmanslaughter. fHe fgot fa fsix f month
fsentence.
The fBritish fjudge fin fthe fcase fhere fimposed fthe fdeath fpenalty fupon fthe fperson fwho
fsurvived. fThe fjudge ffound fit fdifficult fto frule fthat fevery fman fon fboard fhad fthe fright fto
fmake flaw fby fhis fown fhand.fThe fCrown freduced fthe fsentence f to fsix f months.
2. Smoking fis fa fserious fhealth fhazard. fCigarettes fare flegal. fShould fcigarette fmanufacturers fbe
fliable ffor fthe fserious fillnesses fand funtimely fdeaths fcaused fby ftheir funavoidably fdangerous
fproducts, fevenfthough fthey fpost fa fwarning fon fthe fpackage fand fconsumers fvoluntarily fassume
fthe fhealth frisks fby fsmoking? f[Cipollone fv. fLiggett fGroup, fInc., f505 fU.S. f504 f(1992)]
Answer: fThe fgeneral frule fthat fexists fnow fis fthat fsince fthe fgovernment fhas fordered fthe fposting fof
fwarningflabels fon fcigarettes, fand fsince fthe fdangers fof fsmoking fare fwell fknown, fconsumers
fhave fbeen fwarned fand fare fnot fdue fcompensation fif fthey fkill fthemselves fby fsmoking. fThe
f Cippoline fcase, fsince freviewed fby fthe fSupreme fCourt, fappears fto fbe fof flimited fimpact fsince
fthe f victim fwas fadjudged fto fhave fbecome faddicted fto fcigarettes fbefore fthe f warning flabel fwas
fordered fin f1964. fIf fcigarette fmakers fwere fheld fresponsible ffor fall fhealth fproblems fassociated
fwith fcigarettes, fthen, flike falcohol fand fother fdangerous fproducts, fthe fdamages fwould flikely fbe
fso fhigh fit fwould feffectively fban fthe fproducts. fPresumably, fin fa ffree fsociety fif fadults fare
fclearly finformed fof fthe frisks fof fproducts fthat fcannot fbe fmade fsafe, fthey faccept fthe frisk.
fTobacco fand falcohol fproducers fcannot ftake fthe fdangers fout fof fthe fproducts fexcept fat fthe
fmargin fby fencouraging fresponsible fdrinking fand fthe flike. fAre fdrugs flike fcocaine fdifferent?
3. Two feight-year-old fboys fwere fseriously finjured fwhen friding fHonda fmini-trail fbikes. fThe fboys
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
