The Legal Environment of Business, 15th Edition
Roger E. Meiners | Al H. Ringleb | Frances L. Edwards
SOLUTIONS MANUAL
What's Included
✓ Discussion Questions & Answers
✓ Case Questions & Detailed Solutions
✓ Ethics & Social Questions with Answers
✓ Chapter-by-Chapter Solution Guide
✓ Complete Answer Explanations
✓ Real-World Legal Case Analysis
✓ Instructor Solution Manual
✓ Covers All Chapters (1–21)
✓ Updated 2027 Edition Content
, Solution and Answer Guide: Meiners, Ringleb, Edwards, The Legal Environment of Business, 2027, 15e,
9798214056449; Chapter 1: Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
Solution and Answer Guide
MEINERS, RINGLEB, EDWARDS, THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 2027, 15E,
9798214056449; CHAPTER 1: TODAY’S BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT: LAW AND ETHICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Discussion Question and Answer ......................................................................................... 1
Case Questions and Answers ............................................................................................... 1
Ethics and Social Questions and Answers ......................................................................... 4
DISCUSSION QUESTION AND ANSWER
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 is generally true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have
constructive knowledge of the law. Yet, as well known as this rule is, it is surprising how often
it is proffered as an excuse. (A Westlaw search of cases finds hundreds of examples).
Examples include: Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack of knowledge regarding the state’s usury
laws is no excuse for the inclusion of an illegal interest rate in a sales contract) and Plumlee
v. Paddock (ignorance of the fact that the subject matter of the contract was illegal was not
an excuse). The courts have provided a small exception to the rule when it comes to people
with limited English language skills. Consider Flanery v. Kuska (a defendant who did not speak
English was advised by a friend that an answer to a complaint was not required), Ramon v.
Dept. of Transportation (no understanding of English and an inability to understand the law
required was an excuse), and Yurechko v. County of Allegheny (ignorance of the law and the
fact that the municipality suffered no hardship because of the late lawsuit filing was an
excuse).
CASE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht . . . were cast
away in a storm on the high seas . . . and were compelled to put into an open boat. . . .
They had no supply of water and no supply of food. . . . That on the eighteenth day . . .
they . . . suggested that one should be sacrificed to save the rest. . . . That next day . . .
they . . . went to the boy . . . put a knife into his throat and killed him . . . the three men
fed upon the body . . . of the boy for four days; [then] the boat was picked up by a passing
vessel, and [they] were rescued. . . . and committed for trial. . . . if the men had not fed
upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be so picked up and
© 2027 1
, Solution and Answer Guide: Meiners, Ringleb, Edwards, The Legal Environment of Business, 2027, 15e,
9798214056449; Chapter 1: Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
rescued, but would . . . have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker condition,
was likely to have died before them. . . . The real question in this case [is] whether killing
under the conditions set forth . . . be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to be
immoral? [Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)]
Answer:
This question points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated
by legal culture-, which determines whether laws will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or
abused. It is limited by the informal rules of society, its customs and values. One limit
is the extent to which society will allow the formal rules to be imposed when a crime
is committed in odd circumstances. Here, there was an intentional murder. Does the
motive for the murder, the effort to save several lives by sacrificing one life, make it a
crime that should be punished? Not all crimes are treated the same. It also raises
questions about the desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
There was a precedent for a light sentence in this case in U.S. law: U.S. v. Holmes, 20
F. Cas. 360 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several
passengers made it to the only lifeboat, which was far too overcrowded. The captain
decided to save the women and children and threw several men overboard. The
lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to indict the captain for murder, only for
manslaughter. He got a six-month sentence.
The British judge in this case imposed the death penalty upon the person who
survived. The judge found it difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to
make law by his own hand. The Crown reduced the sentence to six months.
2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette
manufacturers be liable for the serious illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their
unavoidably dangerous products, even though they post a warning on the package and
consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking? [Cipollone v. Liggett Group,
Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)]
Answer:
The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting
of warning labels on cigarettes and the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers
have been warned and are not due compensation if they kill themselves by smoking.
The Cipollone case, since reviewed by the Supreme Court, appears to be of limited
impact since the victim was adjudged to have become addicted to cigarettes before
the warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette makers were held responsible for all
health problems associated with cigarettes, then, like other dangerous products, the
damages would likely be so high it would effectively ban the products. Presumably, in
a free society, if adults are clearly informed of the risks of products that cannot be
made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcohol producers cannot take the
dangers out of the products except at the margin by taking actions such as
encouraging responsible drinking.
3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-trail bikes.
The boys were riding on public streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck.
The bikes had clear warning labels on the front stating they were only for off-road use.
The manual stated the bikes were not to be used on public streets. The parents sued
Honda. The Supreme Court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a
manufacturer liable when children are injured while riding one of its mini-trail bikes on
© 2027 2
, Solution and Answer Guide: Meiners, Ringleb, Edwards, The Legal Environment of Business, 2027, 15e,
9798214056449; Chapter 1: Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
a public road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it unethical to
make products like mini-trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this
will happen? [Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655 Sup. Ct, Wash., (1986)]
Answer:
The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product
was safe for intended use. Safety instructions were clear, and the parents let the boys
ride the bikes. Anything can be dangerous; baseballs are dangerous when they hit the
head, and swings are dangerous when kids jump out of them. There is only so much
that can be done to make the government the “national nanny” as the Washington
Post once said about excessive consumer protection. Parents must accept a high
degree of responsibility for their own children. Ethics and legal standards are not the
same thing.
4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age
could not work in the battery-making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the
battery operation could cause harm to unborn babies. The company was concerned
about possible legal liability for injury suffered by babies of mothers who had worked
in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the company policy was illegal. It was
an “excuse for denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing
the company to be unethical by allowing pregnant women who ignore the warnings to
expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187
(1991)]
Answer:
The Court held it to be a form of sex discrimination to prevent women of child-bearing
age from holding the more dangerous jobs. The company argued that it did this to
protect itself from possible liability in case of damage to babies and that the decision
was ethical. The replacements for these workers were often men or more senior
women, who tended to be higher income workers, so this was not a current
cost-saving move. Note that a 2002 ruling related to the ADA significantly restricted
this earlier case.
5. McGrory worked for Applied Signal Technology in a supervisory position. He was
accused of violating the company’s policies on sexual harassment. An internal
investigation determined he did not violate the policy but that he was evasive and
violated the company’s personal ethics code. He was fired and sued for wrongful
termination, contending that if he did not violate sexual harassment rules he should
not have been subject to termination. Do standards of law and ethics need to be the
same for an employer? [McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 154
(2013)]
Answer:
The appeals court affirmed that the employer had the right to terminate the employee
for failure to be fully cooperative in the investigation of the complaint of sexual
harassment that had been filed against him. While he was not found to have violated
the harassment policy, he was evasive and uncooperative, which violated the
company’s code of ethics and was a justification for termination.
© 2027 3
Roger E. Meiners | Al H. Ringleb | Frances L. Edwards
SOLUTIONS MANUAL
What's Included
✓ Discussion Questions & Answers
✓ Case Questions & Detailed Solutions
✓ Ethics & Social Questions with Answers
✓ Chapter-by-Chapter Solution Guide
✓ Complete Answer Explanations
✓ Real-World Legal Case Analysis
✓ Instructor Solution Manual
✓ Covers All Chapters (1–21)
✓ Updated 2027 Edition Content
, Solution and Answer Guide: Meiners, Ringleb, Edwards, The Legal Environment of Business, 2027, 15e,
9798214056449; Chapter 1: Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
Solution and Answer Guide
MEINERS, RINGLEB, EDWARDS, THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 2027, 15E,
9798214056449; CHAPTER 1: TODAY’S BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT: LAW AND ETHICS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Discussion Question and Answer ......................................................................................... 1
Case Questions and Answers ............................................................................................... 1
Ethics and Social Questions and Answers ......................................................................... 4
DISCUSSION QUESTION AND ANSWER
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 is generally true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have
constructive knowledge of the law. Yet, as well known as this rule is, it is surprising how often
it is proffered as an excuse. (A Westlaw search of cases finds hundreds of examples).
Examples include: Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack of knowledge regarding the state’s usury
laws is no excuse for the inclusion of an illegal interest rate in a sales contract) and Plumlee
v. Paddock (ignorance of the fact that the subject matter of the contract was illegal was not
an excuse). The courts have provided a small exception to the rule when it comes to people
with limited English language skills. Consider Flanery v. Kuska (a defendant who did not speak
English was advised by a friend that an answer to a complaint was not required), Ramon v.
Dept. of Transportation (no understanding of English and an inability to understand the law
required was an excuse), and Yurechko v. County of Allegheny (ignorance of the law and the
fact that the municipality suffered no hardship because of the late lawsuit filing was an
excuse).
CASE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht . . . were cast
away in a storm on the high seas . . . and were compelled to put into an open boat. . . .
They had no supply of water and no supply of food. . . . That on the eighteenth day . . .
they . . . suggested that one should be sacrificed to save the rest. . . . That next day . . .
they . . . went to the boy . . . put a knife into his throat and killed him . . . the three men
fed upon the body . . . of the boy for four days; [then] the boat was picked up by a passing
vessel, and [they] were rescued. . . . and committed for trial. . . . if the men had not fed
upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be so picked up and
© 2027 1
, Solution and Answer Guide: Meiners, Ringleb, Edwards, The Legal Environment of Business, 2027, 15e,
9798214056449; Chapter 1: Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
rescued, but would . . . have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker condition,
was likely to have died before them. . . . The real question in this case [is] whether killing
under the conditions set forth . . . be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to be
immoral? [Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)]
Answer:
This question points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated
by legal culture-, which determines whether laws will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or
abused. It is limited by the informal rules of society, its customs and values. One limit
is the extent to which society will allow the formal rules to be imposed when a crime
is committed in odd circumstances. Here, there was an intentional murder. Does the
motive for the murder, the effort to save several lives by sacrificing one life, make it a
crime that should be punished? Not all crimes are treated the same. It also raises
questions about the desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
There was a precedent for a light sentence in this case in U.S. law: U.S. v. Holmes, 20
F. Cas. 360 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several
passengers made it to the only lifeboat, which was far too overcrowded. The captain
decided to save the women and children and threw several men overboard. The
lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to indict the captain for murder, only for
manslaughter. He got a six-month sentence.
The British judge in this case imposed the death penalty upon the person who
survived. The judge found it difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to
make law by his own hand. The Crown reduced the sentence to six months.
2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette
manufacturers be liable for the serious illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their
unavoidably dangerous products, even though they post a warning on the package and
consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking? [Cipollone v. Liggett Group,
Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)]
Answer:
The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting
of warning labels on cigarettes and the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers
have been warned and are not due compensation if they kill themselves by smoking.
The Cipollone case, since reviewed by the Supreme Court, appears to be of limited
impact since the victim was adjudged to have become addicted to cigarettes before
the warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette makers were held responsible for all
health problems associated with cigarettes, then, like other dangerous products, the
damages would likely be so high it would effectively ban the products. Presumably, in
a free society, if adults are clearly informed of the risks of products that cannot be
made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcohol producers cannot take the
dangers out of the products except at the margin by taking actions such as
encouraging responsible drinking.
3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-trail bikes.
The boys were riding on public streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck.
The bikes had clear warning labels on the front stating they were only for off-road use.
The manual stated the bikes were not to be used on public streets. The parents sued
Honda. The Supreme Court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a
manufacturer liable when children are injured while riding one of its mini-trail bikes on
© 2027 2
, Solution and Answer Guide: Meiners, Ringleb, Edwards, The Legal Environment of Business, 2027, 15e,
9798214056449; Chapter 1: Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
a public road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it unethical to
make products like mini-trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this
will happen? [Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655 Sup. Ct, Wash., (1986)]
Answer:
The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product
was safe for intended use. Safety instructions were clear, and the parents let the boys
ride the bikes. Anything can be dangerous; baseballs are dangerous when they hit the
head, and swings are dangerous when kids jump out of them. There is only so much
that can be done to make the government the “national nanny” as the Washington
Post once said about excessive consumer protection. Parents must accept a high
degree of responsibility for their own children. Ethics and legal standards are not the
same thing.
4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age
could not work in the battery-making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the
battery operation could cause harm to unborn babies. The company was concerned
about possible legal liability for injury suffered by babies of mothers who had worked
in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the company policy was illegal. It was
an “excuse for denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing
the company to be unethical by allowing pregnant women who ignore the warnings to
expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187
(1991)]
Answer:
The Court held it to be a form of sex discrimination to prevent women of child-bearing
age from holding the more dangerous jobs. The company argued that it did this to
protect itself from possible liability in case of damage to babies and that the decision
was ethical. The replacements for these workers were often men or more senior
women, who tended to be higher income workers, so this was not a current
cost-saving move. Note that a 2002 ruling related to the ADA significantly restricted
this earlier case.
5. McGrory worked for Applied Signal Technology in a supervisory position. He was
accused of violating the company’s policies on sexual harassment. An internal
investigation determined he did not violate the policy but that he was evasive and
violated the company’s personal ethics code. He was fired and sued for wrongful
termination, contending that if he did not violate sexual harassment rules he should
not have been subject to termination. Do standards of law and ethics need to be the
same for an employer? [McGrory v. Applied Signal Technology, 152 Cal.Rptr.3d 154
(2013)]
Answer:
The appeals court affirmed that the employer had the right to terminate the employee
for failure to be fully cooperative in the investigation of the complaint of sexual
harassment that had been filed against him. While he was not found to have violated
the harassment policy, he was evasive and uncooperative, which violated the
company’s code of ethics and was a justification for termination.
© 2027 3
