SOLUTION MANUAL
t
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
t t t t t t
by Roger E. Meiners, Chapters 1 - 22, Complete
t t t t t t t t
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
t t t
➢ Chapter t1. tToday’s tBusiness tEnvironment: tLaw tand tEthics
➢ Chapter t2. tThe tCourt tSystems
➢ Chapter t3. tTrials tand tResolving tDisputes
➢ Chapter t4. tThe tConstitution: tFocus ton tApplication tto tBusiness
➢ Chapter t5. tCriminal tLaw tand tBusiness
➢ Chapter t6. tElements tof tTorts
➢ Chapter t7. tBusiness tTorts tand tProduct tLiability
➢ Chapter t8. tReal tand tPersonal tProperty
➢ Chapter t9. tIntellectual tProperty
➢ Chapter t10. tContracts
➢ Chapter t11. tDomestic tand tInternational tSales
➢ Chapter t12. tBusiness tOrganizations
➢ Chapter t13. tNegotiable tInstruments, tCredit, tand tBankruptcy
➢ Chapter t14. tAgency tand tthe tEmployment tRelationship
➢ Chapter t15. tEmployment tand tLabor tRegulations
➢ Chapter t16. tEmployment tDiscrimination
➢ Chapter t17. tThe tRegulatory tProcess
➢ Chapter t18. tSecurities tRegulation
➢ Chapter t19. tConsumer tProtection
➢ Chapter t20. tAntitrust tLaw
➢ Chapter t21. tEnvironmental tLaw
➢ Chapter t22. tThe tInternational tLegal tEnvironment tof tBusiness
,CHAPTER 1 t
Table of Contents
t t
Answer tto tDiscussion tQuestion .............................................................................................................. 1
Answers tto tCase tQuestions .................................................................................................................... 1
Answers tto tEthics tand tSocial tQuestions ................................................................................................ 3
Answer to Discussion Question
t t t
Should tthe tcommon tlaw tmaxim t“Ignorance tof tthe tlaw tis tno texcuse” tapply tto tan timmigrant twho tspeakstlittle
tEnglish tand twas tnot teducated tin tthe tUnited tStates? tHow tabout tfor ta ttourist twho tdoes tnot tspeak tEnglish?
tEveryone tknows tcriminal tacts tare tprohibited, tbut twhat tabout tsubtler trules tthat tdiffer tacross tcountries tand
tso tmay tbe tmisunderstood tby tforeigners?
Answer: tIt tis tgenerally ttrue tthat tignorance tof tthe tlaw tis tno texcuse. tCitizens tare tdeemed tto thave
tconstructive tknowledge tof tthe tlaw. tYet, tas twell tknown t as tthis trule tis, tit tis tsurprising thow toften tit tis
tproffered tas tan texcuse. t(A t Westlaw tsearch tcases tfinds thundreds tof texamples). tExamples tinclude:
tDeluco tv. tDezi t(Conn. tSuper) t(lack tof tknowledge tregarding tthe tstate‘s tusury tlaws tis tno texcuse tfor tthe
tinclusion tof tan tillegal tinterest trate tin ta tsales tcontract); tand tPlumlee tv. tPaddock t(ignorance tof tthetfact
tthat tthe tsubject tmatter tof tthe tcontract twas tillegal twas tnot texcuse). tThe tcourts thave tprovided ta tsmall
texception tto tthe trule twhen tit tcomes tto tpeople tin tlack t of tEnglish tlanguage tskills. tConsider tFlanery tv.
tKuska, t(defendant tdid tnot tspeak tEnglish twas tadvised tby ta tfriend t that tan tanswer tto ta tcomplaint twas
tnot trequired); t Ramon tv. tDept. tof tTransportation, t (no tEnglish tand tan tinability tto tunderstand tthe tlaw
trequired tfor tan texcuse); tYurechko tv. tCounty tof tAllegheny, t(Ignorance tand t with tthe tfact tthat t the
tmunicipality tsuffered tno thardship tin tlate tlawsuit tfiling twas tan texcuse).
Answers to Case Questionst t t
1. Facts tfrom tan tEnglish tjudge’s tdecision tin t1884: t“The tcrew tof tan tEnglish tyacht............. were tcast taway tin
a tstorm ton tthe thigh tseas t. t. t. tand twere tcompelled tto tput tinto tan topen tboat......... They thad tno tsupply
of twater tand tno tsupply tof tfood. t. t. t. tThat ton tthe teighteenth tday t. t. t. tthey ...... suggested tthat tone
should tbe tsacrificed tto tsave tthe trest. t. t. t. tThat tnext tday t. t. t. tthey t. t. t. twent tto tthe tboy ....... put ta tknife
into this tthroat tand tkilled thim t. t. t. tthe tthree tmen tfed tupon tthe tbody ...... of tthe tboy tfor tfour tdays; t[then]
the tboat twas tpicked tup tby ta tpassing tvessel, tand t[they] twere trescued. t. t. t. tand tcommitted tfor ttrial. t. t. t.
if tthe tmen thad tnot tfed tupon tthe tbody tof tthe tboy tthey twould tprobably tnot thave tsurvived tto tbe tso
tpicked tup tand trescued, tbut twould ......... have tdied tof tfamine. tThe tboy, tbeing tin ta tmuch tweaker
condition, twas tlikely tto thave tdied tbefore tthem .......... The treal tquestion tin tthis tcase t[is] twhether tkilling
under tthe tconditions tset tforth ........ be tor tbe tnot tmurder.” tDo tyou tconsider tthe tacts tto tbe timmoral?
[Regina tv. tDudley tand tStephens, t14 tQueens tBench tDivision t273 t(1884)]
Answer: tThis tpoints tout tthat tthe tlegal tsystem thas tlimits. tIts tacceptability tis tdictated tby tlegal tculture--which
tdetermines twhether tlaw twill tbe tenforced, tobeyed, tavoided, tor tabused. tIt tis tlimited tby tthe tinformal
trules tof tthe tsociety--its tcustoms tand tvalues. tOne tlimit tis tthe textent tto twhich tsociety twill tallow tthe
tformal trules tto tbe timposed twhen ta tcrime tis tcommitted tin todd tcircumstances. tHere t there twas tan
tintentional tmurder. tDoes tthe tmotive tfor tthe tmurder, tthe teffort tto tsave tseveral tlives tby tsacrificing tone
, life, tmake tit ta tcrime tthat tshould tbe tpunished? tNot tall tcrimes tare ttreated tthe tsame. tIt talso traises
tquestions tabout tthe t desirability tof tnot tgiving tjudges tflexibility tin tsentencing.
There twas ta tprecedent tfor ta tlight tsentence tin tthis tcase tin tU.S. tlaw: tU.S. tv. tHolmes, t20 tF. tCas. t360 t(No.
t15383) t(C.C.E.D. tPa. t1842). tThe tcase tinvolved ta tsinking t ocean tliner. tSeveral tpassengers tmadetit tto tthe
tonly tlifeboat, t which twas tfar ttoo tovercrowded. tThe tcaptain t decided tto tsave tthe t women tand tchildren
t and t threw t several t men t overboard. tThe t lifeboat t was t rescued. tThe t grand t jury trefused t to tindict tthe
tcaptain t from tmurder, tonly tfor tmanslaughter. t He tgot ta tsix tmonth tsentence.
The tBritish tjudge tin tthe tcase there timposed tthe tdeath tpenalty tupon tthe tperson twho tsurvived. tThe
tjudge tfound tit tdifficult tto trule tthat tevery tman ton tboard thad tthe tright tto tmake tlaw tby this town
thand.tThe tCrown treduced tthe tsentence t to tsix tmonths.
2. Smoking tis ta tserious thealth thazard. tCigarettes tare tlegal. tShould tcigarette tmanufacturers tbe tliable tfor
tthe tserious tillnesses tand tuntimely tdeaths tcaused tby ttheir tunavoidably tdangerous tproducts, teventthough
tthey tpost ta twarning ton tthe tpackage tand tconsumers tvoluntarily tassume tthe thealth trisks tby tsmoking?
t[Cipollone tv. tLiggett tGroup, tInc., t505 tU.S. t504 t(1992)]
Answer: tThe tgeneral trule tthat texists tnow tis tthat tsince tthe tgovernment thas tordered tthe tposting tof twarning
tlabels ton tcigarettes, t and tsince tthe tdangers tof tsmoking tare twell tknown, tconsumers thave tbeen twarned
tand tare tnot tdue tcompensation tif tthey tkill tthemselves tby tsmoking. tThe t Cippoline tcase, tsince treviewed
tby tthe tSupreme tCourt, tappears tto tbe tof tlimited timpact tsince tthe t victim twas tadjudged tto thave
tbecome taddicted tto tcigarettes tbefore tthe twarning tlabel twas tordered tin t1964. tIf tcigarette tmakers
twere theld tresponsible tfor tall thealth tproblems tassociated t with tcigarettes, tthen, tlike talcohol tand tother
t dangerous tproducts, tthe tdamages twould tlikely tbe tso thigh tit twould teffectively tban tthe tproducts.
tPresumably, tin ta tfree tsociety tif t adults tare tclearly tinformed tof tthe trisks tof tproducts tthat tcannot tbe
tmade tsafe, tthey taccept tthe trisk. tTobacco tand talcohol tproducers tcannot ttake tthe tdangers tout tof tthe
tproducts texcept tat tthe tmargin tby tencouraging tresponsible tdrinking tand tthe tlike. tAre tdrugs tlike tcocaine
t different?
3. Two teight-year-old tboys twere tseriously tinjured twhen triding tHonda tmini-trail tbikes. tThe tboys twere triding
ton tpublic tstreets, tran ta tstop tsign, tand twere thit tby ta ttruck. tThe tbikes thad tclear twarning tlabels ton tthe
tfront tstating tthey twere tonly tfor toff-road tuse. tThe tmanual tstated tthe tbikes twere tnot tto tbe tusedton
tpublic tstreets. tThe tparents tsued tHonda. tThe tsupreme tcourt tof tWashington tsaid tone tbasic tissue texisted:
t“Is ta tmanufacturer tliable twhen tchildren tare tinjured twhile triding tone tof tits tmini-trail tbikes ton tatpublic
troad tin tviolation tof tmanufacturer tand tparental twarnings?” tIs tit tunethical tto tmake tproducts tlike tmini-
trail tbikes tchildren twill tuse twhen twe tknow taccidents tlike tthis twill thappen? t[Baughn tv. tHonda tMotor
tCo., t727 tP.2d t655 tSup. tCt, tWash., t(1986)]
Answer: tThe tcourt tfound tno tliability tfor tthe tmanufacturers. tThere twas tno tdefect; tthe tproduct twas tsafe tfor
tintended tuse. tSafety tinstructions twere tclear; tthe tparents tlet tthe tboys tride tthe tbikes. tAnything tcan tbe
tdangerous--baseballs tare tdangerous t when tthey thit tthe thead, tswings tare tdangerous twhen tkids tjumptout
tof tthem; tthere tis tonly tso tmuch tthat tcan tbe tdone tto tmake tthe tgovernment tthe t―national tnanny‖ tas
tthe tWashington tPost tonce tsaid tabout texcessive tconsumer tprotection. tParents tmust taccept ta thigh
tdegree tof t responsible tfor ttheir town tchildren.
4. Johnson tControls tadopted ta t“fetal tprotection tpolicy” tthat twomen tof tchildbearing tage tcould tnot twork tin
tthe tbattery-making tdivision tof tthe tcompany. tExposure tto tlead tin tthe tbattery toperation tcould tcause
tharm tto tunborn tbabies. tThe tcompany twas tconcerned tabout tpossible tlegal tliability tfor tinjury tsufferedtby
tbabies tof tmothers twho thad tworked tin tthe tbattery tdivision. tThe tSupreme tCourt theld tthe tcompanytpolicy
twas tillegal. tIt twas tan t“excuse tfor tdenying twomen tequal temployment topportunities.” tIs tthe tCourt
tforcing tthe tcompany tto tbe tunethical tby tallowing tpregnant twomen twho tignore tthe twarnings tto texpose
ttheir tbabies tto tthe tlead? t[United tAuto tWorkers tv. tJohnson tControls, t499 tU.S. t187 t(1991)]
Answer: tThe tCourt theld tit ta tform tof tsex tdiscrimination tto tprevent twomen tof tchild-bearing tage tfrom
tholding tthe tmore tdangerous tjobs. tThe tcompany targued tthat tit tdid tthis tto tprotect titself tfrom t possible
tliability tin tcase tof tdamage tto tbabies tand tthat tthe tdecision twas tethical. tThe treplacements tfor tthese
t
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
t t t t t t
by Roger E. Meiners, Chapters 1 - 22, Complete
t t t t t t t t
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
t t t
➢ Chapter t1. tToday’s tBusiness tEnvironment: tLaw tand tEthics
➢ Chapter t2. tThe tCourt tSystems
➢ Chapter t3. tTrials tand tResolving tDisputes
➢ Chapter t4. tThe tConstitution: tFocus ton tApplication tto tBusiness
➢ Chapter t5. tCriminal tLaw tand tBusiness
➢ Chapter t6. tElements tof tTorts
➢ Chapter t7. tBusiness tTorts tand tProduct tLiability
➢ Chapter t8. tReal tand tPersonal tProperty
➢ Chapter t9. tIntellectual tProperty
➢ Chapter t10. tContracts
➢ Chapter t11. tDomestic tand tInternational tSales
➢ Chapter t12. tBusiness tOrganizations
➢ Chapter t13. tNegotiable tInstruments, tCredit, tand tBankruptcy
➢ Chapter t14. tAgency tand tthe tEmployment tRelationship
➢ Chapter t15. tEmployment tand tLabor tRegulations
➢ Chapter t16. tEmployment tDiscrimination
➢ Chapter t17. tThe tRegulatory tProcess
➢ Chapter t18. tSecurities tRegulation
➢ Chapter t19. tConsumer tProtection
➢ Chapter t20. tAntitrust tLaw
➢ Chapter t21. tEnvironmental tLaw
➢ Chapter t22. tThe tInternational tLegal tEnvironment tof tBusiness
,CHAPTER 1 t
Table of Contents
t t
Answer tto tDiscussion tQuestion .............................................................................................................. 1
Answers tto tCase tQuestions .................................................................................................................... 1
Answers tto tEthics tand tSocial tQuestions ................................................................................................ 3
Answer to Discussion Question
t t t
Should tthe tcommon tlaw tmaxim t“Ignorance tof tthe tlaw tis tno texcuse” tapply tto tan timmigrant twho tspeakstlittle
tEnglish tand twas tnot teducated tin tthe tUnited tStates? tHow tabout tfor ta ttourist twho tdoes tnot tspeak tEnglish?
tEveryone tknows tcriminal tacts tare tprohibited, tbut twhat tabout tsubtler trules tthat tdiffer tacross tcountries tand
tso tmay tbe tmisunderstood tby tforeigners?
Answer: tIt tis tgenerally ttrue tthat tignorance tof tthe tlaw tis tno texcuse. tCitizens tare tdeemed tto thave
tconstructive tknowledge tof tthe tlaw. tYet, tas twell tknown t as tthis trule tis, tit tis tsurprising thow toften tit tis
tproffered tas tan texcuse. t(A t Westlaw tsearch tcases tfinds thundreds tof texamples). tExamples tinclude:
tDeluco tv. tDezi t(Conn. tSuper) t(lack tof tknowledge tregarding tthe tstate‘s tusury tlaws tis tno texcuse tfor tthe
tinclusion tof tan tillegal tinterest trate tin ta tsales tcontract); tand tPlumlee tv. tPaddock t(ignorance tof tthetfact
tthat tthe tsubject tmatter tof tthe tcontract twas tillegal twas tnot texcuse). tThe tcourts thave tprovided ta tsmall
texception tto tthe trule twhen tit tcomes tto tpeople tin tlack t of tEnglish tlanguage tskills. tConsider tFlanery tv.
tKuska, t(defendant tdid tnot tspeak tEnglish twas tadvised tby ta tfriend t that tan tanswer tto ta tcomplaint twas
tnot trequired); t Ramon tv. tDept. tof tTransportation, t (no tEnglish tand tan tinability tto tunderstand tthe tlaw
trequired tfor tan texcuse); tYurechko tv. tCounty tof tAllegheny, t(Ignorance tand t with tthe tfact tthat t the
tmunicipality tsuffered tno thardship tin tlate tlawsuit tfiling twas tan texcuse).
Answers to Case Questionst t t
1. Facts tfrom tan tEnglish tjudge’s tdecision tin t1884: t“The tcrew tof tan tEnglish tyacht............. were tcast taway tin
a tstorm ton tthe thigh tseas t. t. t. tand twere tcompelled tto tput tinto tan topen tboat......... They thad tno tsupply
of twater tand tno tsupply tof tfood. t. t. t. tThat ton tthe teighteenth tday t. t. t. tthey ...... suggested tthat tone
should tbe tsacrificed tto tsave tthe trest. t. t. t. tThat tnext tday t. t. t. tthey t. t. t. twent tto tthe tboy ....... put ta tknife
into this tthroat tand tkilled thim t. t. t. tthe tthree tmen tfed tupon tthe tbody ...... of tthe tboy tfor tfour tdays; t[then]
the tboat twas tpicked tup tby ta tpassing tvessel, tand t[they] twere trescued. t. t. t. tand tcommitted tfor ttrial. t. t. t.
if tthe tmen thad tnot tfed tupon tthe tbody tof tthe tboy tthey twould tprobably tnot thave tsurvived tto tbe tso
tpicked tup tand trescued, tbut twould ......... have tdied tof tfamine. tThe tboy, tbeing tin ta tmuch tweaker
condition, twas tlikely tto thave tdied tbefore tthem .......... The treal tquestion tin tthis tcase t[is] twhether tkilling
under tthe tconditions tset tforth ........ be tor tbe tnot tmurder.” tDo tyou tconsider tthe tacts tto tbe timmoral?
[Regina tv. tDudley tand tStephens, t14 tQueens tBench tDivision t273 t(1884)]
Answer: tThis tpoints tout tthat tthe tlegal tsystem thas tlimits. tIts tacceptability tis tdictated tby tlegal tculture--which
tdetermines twhether tlaw twill tbe tenforced, tobeyed, tavoided, tor tabused. tIt tis tlimited tby tthe tinformal
trules tof tthe tsociety--its tcustoms tand tvalues. tOne tlimit tis tthe textent tto twhich tsociety twill tallow tthe
tformal trules tto tbe timposed twhen ta tcrime tis tcommitted tin todd tcircumstances. tHere t there twas tan
tintentional tmurder. tDoes tthe tmotive tfor tthe tmurder, tthe teffort tto tsave tseveral tlives tby tsacrificing tone
, life, tmake tit ta tcrime tthat tshould tbe tpunished? tNot tall tcrimes tare ttreated tthe tsame. tIt talso traises
tquestions tabout tthe t desirability tof tnot tgiving tjudges tflexibility tin tsentencing.
There twas ta tprecedent tfor ta tlight tsentence tin tthis tcase tin tU.S. tlaw: tU.S. tv. tHolmes, t20 tF. tCas. t360 t(No.
t15383) t(C.C.E.D. tPa. t1842). tThe tcase tinvolved ta tsinking t ocean tliner. tSeveral tpassengers tmadetit tto tthe
tonly tlifeboat, t which twas tfar ttoo tovercrowded. tThe tcaptain t decided tto tsave tthe t women tand tchildren
t and t threw t several t men t overboard. tThe t lifeboat t was t rescued. tThe t grand t jury trefused t to tindict tthe
tcaptain t from tmurder, tonly tfor tmanslaughter. t He tgot ta tsix tmonth tsentence.
The tBritish tjudge tin tthe tcase there timposed tthe tdeath tpenalty tupon tthe tperson twho tsurvived. tThe
tjudge tfound tit tdifficult tto trule tthat tevery tman ton tboard thad tthe tright tto tmake tlaw tby this town
thand.tThe tCrown treduced tthe tsentence t to tsix tmonths.
2. Smoking tis ta tserious thealth thazard. tCigarettes tare tlegal. tShould tcigarette tmanufacturers tbe tliable tfor
tthe tserious tillnesses tand tuntimely tdeaths tcaused tby ttheir tunavoidably tdangerous tproducts, teventthough
tthey tpost ta twarning ton tthe tpackage tand tconsumers tvoluntarily tassume tthe thealth trisks tby tsmoking?
t[Cipollone tv. tLiggett tGroup, tInc., t505 tU.S. t504 t(1992)]
Answer: tThe tgeneral trule tthat texists tnow tis tthat tsince tthe tgovernment thas tordered tthe tposting tof twarning
tlabels ton tcigarettes, t and tsince tthe tdangers tof tsmoking tare twell tknown, tconsumers thave tbeen twarned
tand tare tnot tdue tcompensation tif tthey tkill tthemselves tby tsmoking. tThe t Cippoline tcase, tsince treviewed
tby tthe tSupreme tCourt, tappears tto tbe tof tlimited timpact tsince tthe t victim twas tadjudged tto thave
tbecome taddicted tto tcigarettes tbefore tthe twarning tlabel twas tordered tin t1964. tIf tcigarette tmakers
twere theld tresponsible tfor tall thealth tproblems tassociated t with tcigarettes, tthen, tlike talcohol tand tother
t dangerous tproducts, tthe tdamages twould tlikely tbe tso thigh tit twould teffectively tban tthe tproducts.
tPresumably, tin ta tfree tsociety tif t adults tare tclearly tinformed tof tthe trisks tof tproducts tthat tcannot tbe
tmade tsafe, tthey taccept tthe trisk. tTobacco tand talcohol tproducers tcannot ttake tthe tdangers tout tof tthe
tproducts texcept tat tthe tmargin tby tencouraging tresponsible tdrinking tand tthe tlike. tAre tdrugs tlike tcocaine
t different?
3. Two teight-year-old tboys twere tseriously tinjured twhen triding tHonda tmini-trail tbikes. tThe tboys twere triding
ton tpublic tstreets, tran ta tstop tsign, tand twere thit tby ta ttruck. tThe tbikes thad tclear twarning tlabels ton tthe
tfront tstating tthey twere tonly tfor toff-road tuse. tThe tmanual tstated tthe tbikes twere tnot tto tbe tusedton
tpublic tstreets. tThe tparents tsued tHonda. tThe tsupreme tcourt tof tWashington tsaid tone tbasic tissue texisted:
t“Is ta tmanufacturer tliable twhen tchildren tare tinjured twhile triding tone tof tits tmini-trail tbikes ton tatpublic
troad tin tviolation tof tmanufacturer tand tparental twarnings?” tIs tit tunethical tto tmake tproducts tlike tmini-
trail tbikes tchildren twill tuse twhen twe tknow taccidents tlike tthis twill thappen? t[Baughn tv. tHonda tMotor
tCo., t727 tP.2d t655 tSup. tCt, tWash., t(1986)]
Answer: tThe tcourt tfound tno tliability tfor tthe tmanufacturers. tThere twas tno tdefect; tthe tproduct twas tsafe tfor
tintended tuse. tSafety tinstructions twere tclear; tthe tparents tlet tthe tboys tride tthe tbikes. tAnything tcan tbe
tdangerous--baseballs tare tdangerous t when tthey thit tthe thead, tswings tare tdangerous twhen tkids tjumptout
tof tthem; tthere tis tonly tso tmuch tthat tcan tbe tdone tto tmake tthe tgovernment tthe t―national tnanny‖ tas
tthe tWashington tPost tonce tsaid tabout texcessive tconsumer tprotection. tParents tmust taccept ta thigh
tdegree tof t responsible tfor ttheir town tchildren.
4. Johnson tControls tadopted ta t“fetal tprotection tpolicy” tthat twomen tof tchildbearing tage tcould tnot twork tin
tthe tbattery-making tdivision tof tthe tcompany. tExposure tto tlead tin tthe tbattery toperation tcould tcause
tharm tto tunborn tbabies. tThe tcompany twas tconcerned tabout tpossible tlegal tliability tfor tinjury tsufferedtby
tbabies tof tmothers twho thad tworked tin tthe tbattery tdivision. tThe tSupreme tCourt theld tthe tcompanytpolicy
twas tillegal. tIt twas tan t“excuse tfor tdenying twomen tequal temployment topportunities.” tIs tthe tCourt
tforcing tthe tcompany tto tbe tunethical tby tallowing tpregnant twomen twho tignore tthe twarnings tto texpose
ttheir tbabies tto tthe tlead? t[United tAuto tWorkers tv. tJohnson tControls, t499 tU.S. t187 t(1991)]
Answer: tThe tCourt theld tit ta tform tof tsex tdiscrimination tto tprevent twomen tof tchild-bearing tage tfrom
tholding tthe tmore tdangerous tjobs. tThe tcompany targued tthat tit tdid tthis tto tprotect titself tfrom t possible
tliability tin tcase tof tdamage tto tbabies tand tthat tthe tdecision twas tethical. tThe treplacements tfor tthese
