INSTUCTOR MANUAL FOR m m
Law for Business 15e Barnes
m m m m
Chapter 1-47 m
CHAPTER 1: LAW AND LEGAL REASONING
m m m m m
LECTUREmOUTLINE
1. DiscussmthemTwisdalemcasemthat mopensmthismchapter.mIt mprovidesmanminterestingmvehiclemf
ormdiscussingmthemfunctionsmof mlaw mand mlegalminterpretation.
a. Havemyourmstudentsmidentifymthemvariousmfunctionsmof mthemlaw mand mthenmdiscussmwhichm
specificmfunctionsmaremfurthered mbymthismantiretaliationmaspectsmof mthemCivilmRightsmstatu
te.
b. Inmthemcontext mof mlegalminterpretation,mthemcourt mfound mthat mTwisdalemdid mseemmtombempro
tected mbased monmthemliteralmlanguagemof mthemstatute.mHowever,mit mlooked mbeyond mthemplai
nmmeaningmtomreject mhismclaim.mSpecifically,mthemcourt mbelieved mthat minterpretingmthemlaw
minmammannermthat mwould mprotect mhimmfrommretaliationmwould munderminemthempurposemof m
themstatute.mIt mismconceivablemthat mthemcourt mismmotivated mbympublicmpolicymconcernsmasm
well.
c. What mdomyourmstudentsmthinkmof mcourtsmwhomdomlookmat mintent mand mpublicmpolicy?mUsemt
hismasmamlead-inmformamdiscussionmof mlegalmjurisprudence.
2. Questionmstudentsmabout mtheirmdefinitionsmof m―law.‖ mMakemcertainmtheymunderstand mt
hemimportancemof mlaw minmallmaspectsmof mourmlives.
3. Discussmthemvariousmfunctionsmthat mlaw mservesminmsociety.mYoummight mdomthismbymhavingmt
hemstudentsmidentifymsomemof mthem.
a. Discussmthemconflictsmthat marisembetweenmand mamongmthemvariousmfunctionsmof mlaw.mForme
xample,mtheremoftenmaremconflictsmbetweenmthemgoalsmof mindividualmfreedommand machievin
gmsocialmjustice.mNotemthemproblemsmthat marisemwhenmtheremismnomclearm consensus monmwha
t mismjust.
b. Askmthemstudentsmif mtheymthinkmthat mlaw mevermism―overused.‖ mTheymaremlikelymtomcitemnu
merousmexamples.mForminstance,mthismmight mbemamtimemtomtalkmabout mthemproduct mliability
mcasesmthat maremregularlyminmthemheadlines.mPerhapsmthemcasem involvingmthemwomanmwhom
burned mherself mwithmcoffeemfrommMcDonald’smwould mbemappropriatemhere.
1-1
©mMcGrawmHillmLLC.mAllmrightsmreserved.mNo mreproduction mormdistribution mwithout mthempriormwritten mcons
ent mof mMcGrawmHillmLLC.
, c. Havemthemstudentsmdiscussmwhat mit mmeansmtomhavemthemlaw mmaintainmorder.mYoummight m
askmstudentsmif mmaintainingmordermmeansmmaintainingmthemstatusmquo.mThismcanm lead mtom
amdiscussionmof mlegalmrealismmand mviewsmthat mlaw mismused mbymthoseminmpowermtomretainmt
heirmpower.
4. Theremismamtendencymformpeoplemtomthinkmof mlaw masmimposingmdutiesmwithout mconsideringmho
wmit mestablishesmand mpreservesmrights.mTalkmabout mhow mourmsystemmtriesmtommatchmrightsmwit
hmcorrespondingmduties.
a. Explainmhow mduties,mrights,mand mprivilegesmmakemupmsubstantivemlaw.
b. Explainmthat mproceduralmlawmprovidesmthemframeworkmwithinmwhichmsubstantivemlawsmar
emcreated mand menforced.mPoint mout mthat mChaptersm2mand m4moffermammoremdetailed mdiscussi
onmof mproceduralmlaw.
5. Askmthemstudentsmtomthinkmof manmexamplemof mamdutymimposed mbymsubstantivemlaw mthat mmight m
violatemsomemmoralmormethicalmbelief.mThismmight mbemamgood mtimemtomtalkmabout mthemvarious m
schoolsmof mlegalmjurisprudence.mHavemthemmspeculatemhowmamlegalmpositivist mwould mdiffermfr
ommamlegalmsociologist mormnaturalmlaw mtheorist minmhandlingm suchmsituations.
6. Contrast mcriminalmlaw mwithmcivilmlaw.
a. Point mout mthat msocietymconsidersmit mmuch mworsemtombemconvicted mof mamcrimemthanmtombemh
eld mcivillymliable.mExplainmhow,mas mamresult,mtheremarem moremexactingmproceduralmsafegua
rdsmtomprotect mamdefendant minmamcriminalmtrialmthanminmamcivilmtrial.
b. Notemthemdifferencembetweenmcompensatorymdamagesmand mpunitivemdamages.mDiscussmt
hemcurrent muproarmovermpunitivemdamagesmand mthemSuprememCourt’smattempt mtomreinmthe
mmin.mSeemStatemFarm mMutualmAutomobilemInsurancemv.mCampbell,m123mS.Ct.m1513m(U.
S.mSup.mCt.m2003)m(establishingmguidepostsmformcalculatingmpunitivemdamages).mPunitive
mdamagesmaremdiscussed mfurtherminmChapterm6.
c. Point mout mthat moftenmonemcanmbemsubject mtomsanctionsmundermbothmcriminalmand mcivilmla
wsmwithout mviolatingmthemproscriptionmagainst m―doublemjeopardy.‖ mFind mout mif mthemstu
dentsmthinkmthat mpunitivemdamagesminmamcivilmtrial,mcoupled mwithmfinesminmamcriminalmtr
ial,mconstitutemamtypemof mdoublemjeopardy.
Marinellomv.mUnitedmStates
Marinellomwasmcharged mwithmthemcrimemof mcorruptlymimpedingmthemduemadministrationmof mthemTax
mCodemaftermhemengaged minmseveralmactivitiesmthat munderreported mhismtaxablemincome.mHowever,mth
e
U.S.mSuprememCourt moverturned mhismcriminalmconvictionmbecausemMarinellomwasmunawaremthat mhe
mwasmundermIRSminvestigationmat mthemtimemof mhismactivities.mCitingmthemneed mtomconstruemcriminal
1-2
©mMcGrawmHillmLLC.mAllmrightsmreserved.mNo mreproduction mormdistribution mwithout mthempriormwritten mcons
ent mof mMcGrawmHillmLLC.
,statutesmnarrowly,mthemCourt mruled mthat mthemparticularmstatute—themOmnibusmClause—
did mnot mcovermallmactivitiesmthat munderreported mincome.mThemCourt mbelieved mthat mthemstatutemcove
red mamnarrowermrangemof mactivitiesmaimed mdirectlymat mthwartingmthemactivitiesmof minvestigationsmw
henmthemtaxpayermknew mormshould mhavemknownmanminvestigationmwasmunderway.
PointsmformDiscussion:mThismcase mismplaced minmthemtext masmanmexamplemof mthemgeneral mrulesmunder
lyingmcriminalmlaw.mSpecifically,mamperson mgenerally mcannot mbemconvicted mof mamcrimemunlessmhemo
rmshemviolatesmamstatute.mHowever,msuchmstatutesmmust mbemobjectivelymclearmtomamreasonable mpers
on.mThismGovernment’sminterpretationmof mthismstatutemwasmbelieved mtomgrant mthemGovernment mtoo
mmuchmdiscretionminmdeterminingmwhat mconstituted mamcrime.
7. Thembrief mintroductionmtomourmlegalmsystemmshould mbemamreview mformmost mstudents.
a. Themconstitutionalmlaw mmaterialmismmoremheavily mdiscussed minmChapterm4.mAnmargument mc
anmbemmademformit mtombempresented mimmediatelymfollowingmthismchapter.mHowever,mwembe
lievemstudentsmshould mfirst mreview mChapterm2’smdiscussionmof mthemdisputemresolutionmsyst
em.
b. Talkmabout mthemrolemof mthemcourtsminmdeterminingmthemconstitutionalitymof mlegislation.m
Domtheymbelievemthismgivesmthemcourtsmtoommuchmpower?
c. Explainmthemrelationshipmbetweenmstatemlawsmand mfederalmlaws.mMakemcertainmthemstudent
smunderstand mthat mstatemlawsmmaymnot mviolatemthemfederalmconstitutionmand mmust mbemconsis
tent mwithmfederalmstatutes.
HenrymScheinmv.mArcherm&mWhitemSales
ThemFederalmArbitrationmAct mprovidesmthat mpartiesmmay,mthroughmtheirmpowermtomcontract,magreemt
hat mtheirmdisputesmwillmbemarbitrated.mInmaddition,mthemAct mallowsmthosemsamempartiesmtomagreemtha
t manmarbitrator,mrathermthanmamcourt,mwillmdeterminemwhethermthat marbitrationmclausemappliesmtomany
mparticularmdisputemtheymmaymhave.mHowever,mseveralmfederalmappellatemcourtsmcarved mout mam―who
llymgroundless‖ mexceptionmtomthemlattermrulembymwhichmtheymallowed mcourtsmtomconcludemthat marbitr
ationmwasmnot mappropriatemwhenmthemcourt mbelieved mthemclaimmof marbitrabilitymwasmgroundless.mIn
mthismcase,mthemU.S.mSuprememCourt,mcitingmbothmthemstatutemand mSuprememCourt mprecedent,mruledm
that mthe
―whollymgroundless‖ mexceptionmwasmimpermissiblembecausemit mcontradicted mthemstatute.
PointsmformDiscussion:m Thismcase misman mexamplemof mthemlimitsmonmthemjudiciary’s mdiscretionmun
dermthemcommonmlaw.mIt millustratesmthat minmthemhierarchymof mlaws,mlegislativem lawmismsuperiormto
mjudge-mmademlaw.mIt malsomillustratesmthemrolemof mprecedent minminterpretingmstatutes.
8. Themmaterialmonmstatutoryminterpretationmcanmbemextremelymimportant minm layingmthemfoundati
onmformhow mlawyersmthink.mMoremimportantly,mit mteachesmstudentsmvaluablemcriticalmthinkingm
skills.mTakemthemstudentsmthroughmthemprocessmforminterpretingmstatutes.mYoummaymdiscussmsta
1-3
©mMcGrawmHillmLLC.mAllmrightsmreserved.mNo mreproduction mormdistribution mwithout mthempriormwritten mcons
ent mof mMcGrawmHillmLLC.
, tutoryminterpretationmand mlegalmjurisprudencemtogether.mNotemhowmpositivistsmoftenmhavempro
blems
1-4
©mMcGrawmHillmLLC.mAllmrightsmreserved.mNo mreproduction mormdistribution mwithout mthempriormwritten mcons
ent mof mMcGrawmHillmLLC.
Law for Business 15e Barnes
m m m m
Chapter 1-47 m
CHAPTER 1: LAW AND LEGAL REASONING
m m m m m
LECTUREmOUTLINE
1. DiscussmthemTwisdalemcasemthat mopensmthismchapter.mIt mprovidesmanminterestingmvehiclemf
ormdiscussingmthemfunctionsmof mlaw mand mlegalminterpretation.
a. Havemyourmstudentsmidentifymthemvariousmfunctionsmof mthemlaw mand mthenmdiscussmwhichm
specificmfunctionsmaremfurthered mbymthismantiretaliationmaspectsmof mthemCivilmRightsmstatu
te.
b. Inmthemcontext mof mlegalminterpretation,mthemcourt mfound mthat mTwisdalemdid mseemmtombempro
tected mbased monmthemliteralmlanguagemof mthemstatute.mHowever,mit mlooked mbeyond mthemplai
nmmeaningmtomreject mhismclaim.mSpecifically,mthemcourt mbelieved mthat minterpretingmthemlaw
minmammannermthat mwould mprotect mhimmfrommretaliationmwould munderminemthempurposemof m
themstatute.mIt mismconceivablemthat mthemcourt mismmotivated mbympublicmpolicymconcernsmasm
well.
c. What mdomyourmstudentsmthinkmof mcourtsmwhomdomlookmat mintent mand mpublicmpolicy?mUsemt
hismasmamlead-inmformamdiscussionmof mlegalmjurisprudence.
2. Questionmstudentsmabout mtheirmdefinitionsmof m―law.‖ mMakemcertainmtheymunderstand mt
hemimportancemof mlaw minmallmaspectsmof mourmlives.
3. Discussmthemvariousmfunctionsmthat mlaw mservesminmsociety.mYoummight mdomthismbymhavingmt
hemstudentsmidentifymsomemof mthem.
a. Discussmthemconflictsmthat marisembetweenmand mamongmthemvariousmfunctionsmof mlaw.mForme
xample,mtheremoftenmaremconflictsmbetweenmthemgoalsmof mindividualmfreedommand machievin
gmsocialmjustice.mNotemthemproblemsmthat marisemwhenmtheremismnomclearm consensus monmwha
t mismjust.
b. Askmthemstudentsmif mtheymthinkmthat mlaw mevermism―overused.‖ mTheymaremlikelymtomcitemnu
merousmexamples.mForminstance,mthismmight mbemamtimemtomtalkmabout mthemproduct mliability
mcasesmthat maremregularlyminmthemheadlines.mPerhapsmthemcasem involvingmthemwomanmwhom
burned mherself mwithmcoffeemfrommMcDonald’smwould mbemappropriatemhere.
1-1
©mMcGrawmHillmLLC.mAllmrightsmreserved.mNo mreproduction mormdistribution mwithout mthempriormwritten mcons
ent mof mMcGrawmHillmLLC.
, c. Havemthemstudentsmdiscussmwhat mit mmeansmtomhavemthemlaw mmaintainmorder.mYoummight m
askmstudentsmif mmaintainingmordermmeansmmaintainingmthemstatusmquo.mThismcanm lead mtom
amdiscussionmof mlegalmrealismmand mviewsmthat mlaw mismused mbymthoseminmpowermtomretainmt
heirmpower.
4. Theremismamtendencymformpeoplemtomthinkmof mlaw masmimposingmdutiesmwithout mconsideringmho
wmit mestablishesmand mpreservesmrights.mTalkmabout mhow mourmsystemmtriesmtommatchmrightsmwit
hmcorrespondingmduties.
a. Explainmhow mduties,mrights,mand mprivilegesmmakemupmsubstantivemlaw.
b. Explainmthat mproceduralmlawmprovidesmthemframeworkmwithinmwhichmsubstantivemlawsmar
emcreated mand menforced.mPoint mout mthat mChaptersm2mand m4moffermammoremdetailed mdiscussi
onmof mproceduralmlaw.
5. Askmthemstudentsmtomthinkmof manmexamplemof mamdutymimposed mbymsubstantivemlaw mthat mmight m
violatemsomemmoralmormethicalmbelief.mThismmight mbemamgood mtimemtomtalkmabout mthemvarious m
schoolsmof mlegalmjurisprudence.mHavemthemmspeculatemhowmamlegalmpositivist mwould mdiffermfr
ommamlegalmsociologist mormnaturalmlaw mtheorist minmhandlingm suchmsituations.
6. Contrast mcriminalmlaw mwithmcivilmlaw.
a. Point mout mthat msocietymconsidersmit mmuch mworsemtombemconvicted mof mamcrimemthanmtombemh
eld mcivillymliable.mExplainmhow,mas mamresult,mtheremarem moremexactingmproceduralmsafegua
rdsmtomprotect mamdefendant minmamcriminalmtrialmthanminmamcivilmtrial.
b. Notemthemdifferencembetweenmcompensatorymdamagesmand mpunitivemdamages.mDiscussmt
hemcurrent muproarmovermpunitivemdamagesmand mthemSuprememCourt’smattempt mtomreinmthe
mmin.mSeemStatemFarm mMutualmAutomobilemInsurancemv.mCampbell,m123mS.Ct.m1513m(U.
S.mSup.mCt.m2003)m(establishingmguidepostsmformcalculatingmpunitivemdamages).mPunitive
mdamagesmaremdiscussed mfurtherminmChapterm6.
c. Point mout mthat moftenmonemcanmbemsubject mtomsanctionsmundermbothmcriminalmand mcivilmla
wsmwithout mviolatingmthemproscriptionmagainst m―doublemjeopardy.‖ mFind mout mif mthemstu
dentsmthinkmthat mpunitivemdamagesminmamcivilmtrial,mcoupled mwithmfinesminmamcriminalmtr
ial,mconstitutemamtypemof mdoublemjeopardy.
Marinellomv.mUnitedmStates
Marinellomwasmcharged mwithmthemcrimemof mcorruptlymimpedingmthemduemadministrationmof mthemTax
mCodemaftermhemengaged minmseveralmactivitiesmthat munderreported mhismtaxablemincome.mHowever,mth
e
U.S.mSuprememCourt moverturned mhismcriminalmconvictionmbecausemMarinellomwasmunawaremthat mhe
mwasmundermIRSminvestigationmat mthemtimemof mhismactivities.mCitingmthemneed mtomconstruemcriminal
1-2
©mMcGrawmHillmLLC.mAllmrightsmreserved.mNo mreproduction mormdistribution mwithout mthempriormwritten mcons
ent mof mMcGrawmHillmLLC.
,statutesmnarrowly,mthemCourt mruled mthat mthemparticularmstatute—themOmnibusmClause—
did mnot mcovermallmactivitiesmthat munderreported mincome.mThemCourt mbelieved mthat mthemstatutemcove
red mamnarrowermrangemof mactivitiesmaimed mdirectlymat mthwartingmthemactivitiesmof minvestigationsmw
henmthemtaxpayermknew mormshould mhavemknownmanminvestigationmwasmunderway.
PointsmformDiscussion:mThismcase mismplaced minmthemtext masmanmexamplemof mthemgeneral mrulesmunder
lyingmcriminalmlaw.mSpecifically,mamperson mgenerally mcannot mbemconvicted mof mamcrimemunlessmhemo
rmshemviolatesmamstatute.mHowever,msuchmstatutesmmust mbemobjectivelymclearmtomamreasonable mpers
on.mThismGovernment’sminterpretationmof mthismstatutemwasmbelieved mtomgrant mthemGovernment mtoo
mmuchmdiscretionminmdeterminingmwhat mconstituted mamcrime.
7. Thembrief mintroductionmtomourmlegalmsystemmshould mbemamreview mformmost mstudents.
a. Themconstitutionalmlaw mmaterialmismmoremheavily mdiscussed minmChapterm4.mAnmargument mc
anmbemmademformit mtombempresented mimmediatelymfollowingmthismchapter.mHowever,mwembe
lievemstudentsmshould mfirst mreview mChapterm2’smdiscussionmof mthemdisputemresolutionmsyst
em.
b. Talkmabout mthemrolemof mthemcourtsminmdeterminingmthemconstitutionalitymof mlegislation.m
Domtheymbelievemthismgivesmthemcourtsmtoommuchmpower?
c. Explainmthemrelationshipmbetweenmstatemlawsmand mfederalmlaws.mMakemcertainmthemstudent
smunderstand mthat mstatemlawsmmaymnot mviolatemthemfederalmconstitutionmand mmust mbemconsis
tent mwithmfederalmstatutes.
HenrymScheinmv.mArcherm&mWhitemSales
ThemFederalmArbitrationmAct mprovidesmthat mpartiesmmay,mthroughmtheirmpowermtomcontract,magreemt
hat mtheirmdisputesmwillmbemarbitrated.mInmaddition,mthemAct mallowsmthosemsamempartiesmtomagreemtha
t manmarbitrator,mrathermthanmamcourt,mwillmdeterminemwhethermthat marbitrationmclausemappliesmtomany
mparticularmdisputemtheymmaymhave.mHowever,mseveralmfederalmappellatemcourtsmcarved mout mam―who
llymgroundless‖ mexceptionmtomthemlattermrulembymwhichmtheymallowed mcourtsmtomconcludemthat marbitr
ationmwasmnot mappropriatemwhenmthemcourt mbelieved mthemclaimmof marbitrabilitymwasmgroundless.mIn
mthismcase,mthemU.S.mSuprememCourt,mcitingmbothmthemstatutemand mSuprememCourt mprecedent,mruledm
that mthe
―whollymgroundless‖ mexceptionmwasmimpermissiblembecausemit mcontradicted mthemstatute.
PointsmformDiscussion:m Thismcase misman mexamplemof mthemlimitsmonmthemjudiciary’s mdiscretionmun
dermthemcommonmlaw.mIt millustratesmthat minmthemhierarchymof mlaws,mlegislativem lawmismsuperiormto
mjudge-mmademlaw.mIt malsomillustratesmthemrolemof mprecedent minminterpretingmstatutes.
8. Themmaterialmonmstatutoryminterpretationmcanmbemextremelymimportant minm layingmthemfoundati
onmformhow mlawyersmthink.mMoremimportantly,mit mteachesmstudentsmvaluablemcriticalmthinkingm
skills.mTakemthemstudentsmthroughmthemprocessmforminterpretingmstatutes.mYoummaymdiscussmsta
1-3
©mMcGrawmHillmLLC.mAllmrightsmreserved.mNo mreproduction mormdistribution mwithout mthempriormwritten mcons
ent mof mMcGrawmHillmLLC.
, tutoryminterpretationmand mlegalmjurisprudencemtogether.mNotemhowmpositivistsmoftenmhavempro
blems
1-4
©mMcGrawmHillmLLC.mAllmrightsmreserved.mNo mreproduction mormdistribution mwithout mthempriormwritten mcons
ent mof mMcGrawmHillmLLC.
