SOLUTION MANUAL The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners, Verified Chapters 1 - 22, Complete

The LegalEnvironmentofBusiness,14th Edition
n n n n n n




SOLUTION MANUALThe Legal Environment of Business, 14th
n n n n n nn




EditionbyRogerE.Meiners,VerifiedChapters1-22,Complete
n n n n n n n n n n n




TheLegal Environment of Business,14th Edition
n n n n n n

, The LegalEnvironmentofBusiness,14th Edition
n n n n n n




TABLEOFCONTENTS
n n




➢ Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
n n n n n n n




➢ Chapter 2. The Court Systems
n n n n




➢ Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
n n n n n




➢ Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
n n n n n n n n




➢ Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
n n n n n




➢ Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
n n n n




➢ Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
n n n n n n




➢ Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
n n n n n




➢ Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
n n n




➢ Chapter 10. Contracts
n n




➢ Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
n n n n n




➢ Chapter 12. Business Organizations
n n n




➢ Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
n n n n n n




➢ Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
n n n n n n




➢ Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
n n n n n




➢ Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
n n n




➢ Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
n n n n




➢ Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
n n n




➢ Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
n n n




➢ Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
n n n




➢ Chapter 21. Environmental Law
n n n




➢ Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
n n n n n n n




TheLegal Environment of Business,14th Edition
n n n n n n

, The LegalEnvironmentofBusiness,14th Edition n n n n n n




CHAPTER 1 n




TableofContents n n




Answer to Discussion Question ............................................................................................................ 1
n n n




Answers to Case Questions ................................................................................................................ 1
n n n




Answers to Ethics and Social Questions ................................................................................................. 3
n n n n n




Answer to Discussion Question n n n




Should the common law maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” apply to an immigrant who speakslittle English and was
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




not educated in the United States? How about for a tourist who does not speak English? Everyone knows criminal acts are
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




prohibited, but what about subtler rules that differ across countries and so may be misunderstood by foreigners?
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




Answer: It is generally true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have constructive knowledge
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




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
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include: Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack of knowledge regarding
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




the state‘s usury laws is no excuse for the inclusion of an illegal interest rate in a sales contract); and Plumlee v.
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




Paddock (ignorance of thefact that the subject matter of the contract was illegal was not excuse). The courts have
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




provided a small exception to the rule when it comes to people in lack of English language skills. Consider Flanery
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




v. Kuska, (defendant did not speak English was advised by a friend that an answer to a complaint was not
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




required); Ramon v. Dept. of Transportation, (no English and an inability to understand the law required for an
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




excuse); Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (Ignorance and with the fact that the municipality suffered no hardship
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




in late lawsuit filing was an excuse).
n n n n n n n




Answers to Case Questions n n n




1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht ............................... were cast away in
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




a storm on the high seas . . . and were compelled to put into an open boat ................................. They had no supply
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




of water and no supply of food. . . . That on the eighteenth day . . . they ............................. suggested that one
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




should be sacrificed to save the rest. . . . That next day . . . they . . . went to the boy .................................... put a knife
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




into his throat and killed him . . . the three men fed upon the body ............................ of the boy for four days; [then]
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and [they] were rescued. . . . and committed for trial. . . .
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be sopicked up and
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




rescued, but would .............................. have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
n n n n n n n n n n n n n




condition, was likely to have died before them....................The real question in this case [is] whether killing
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




under the conditions set forth ................ be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to be immoral?
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




[Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)] n n n n n n n n n n




Answer: This points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated by legal culture--whichdetermines
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal rules of the society--its
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




customs and values. One limit is the extent to which society will allow the formal rules to be imposed when a crime
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




is committed in odd circumstances. Here there was an intentional murder. Does the motive for the murder, the effort
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




to save several lives by sacrificing one
n n n n n n n




TheLegal Environment of Business,14th Edition
n n n n n n

, The LegalEnvironmentofBusiness,14th Edition n n n n n n




life, make it a crime that should be punished? Not all crimes are treated the same. It also raisesquestions about the
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
n n n n n n n n




There was a precedent for a light sentence in this case in U.S. law: U.S. v. Holmes, 20 F. Cas. 360 (No. 15383)
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




n(C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers madeit to the only lifeboat,
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




nwhich was far too overcrowded. The captain decided to save the women and children and threw several men
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




noverboard. The lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to indict the captain from murder, only for
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




manslaughter. He got a six month sentence.
n n n n n n n




The British judge in the case here imposed the death penalty upon the person who survived. Thejudge found it
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to make law by his own hand.The Crown reduced the
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




sentence to six months.
n n n n




2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette manufacturers be liable for the serious
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their unavoidably dangerous products, eventhough they post a warning on the
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




package and consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking? [Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 505
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




U.S. 504 (1992)] n n




Answer: The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting of warninglabels on
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




cigarettes, and since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been warned and are not due
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippoline case, since reviewed by the Supreme Court,
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




appears to be of limited impact since the victim was adjudged to have become addicted to cigarettes before the
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette makers were held responsible for all health problems associated
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




with cigarettes, then, like alcohol and other dangerous products, the damages would likely be so high it would
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




effectively ban the products. Presumably, in a free society if adults are clearly informed of the risks of products
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




that cannot be made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcohol producers cannot take the dangers out of the
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




products except at the margin by encouraging responsible drinking and the like. Are drugs like cocaine
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




different?
n




3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-trail bikes. The boys were riding on public
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




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
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




off-road use. The manual stated the bikes were not to be usedon public streets. The parents sued Honda. The supreme
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a manufacturer liable when children are injured while riding one of
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




its mini-trail bikes on apublic road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it unethical to make
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




products like mini-trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this will happen? [Baughn v. Honda Motor
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




Co., 727 P.2d 655 Sup. Ct, Wash., (1986)]
n n n n n n n n




Answer: The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product was safe for intended use.
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




Safety instructions were clear; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can bedangerous-- baseballs are
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids jumpout of them; there is only so much that can
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




be done to make the government the ―national nanny‖ asthe Washington Post once said about excessive consumer
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




protection. Parents must accept a high degree of responsible for their own children.
n n n n n n n n n n n n n




4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age could not work in the battery-
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the battery operation could causeharm to unborn babies. The
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




company was concerned about possible legal liability for injury sufferedby babies of mothers who had worked in the
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




battery division. The Supreme Court held the companypolicy was illegal. It was an “excuse for
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing the company to be unethical by allowing
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




pregnant women who ignore the warnings to expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto Workers v. Johnson
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)]
n n n n n




Answer: The Court held it a form of sex discrimination to prevent women of child-bearing age from holding the more
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




dangerous jobs. The company argued that it did this to protect itself from possibleliability in case of damage to
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




babies and that the decision was ethical. The replacements for these workers were often men or more senior
n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n n




women, who tended to be higher income workers, so this
n n n n n n n n n n




TheLegal Environment of Business,14th Edition n n n n n n