Solution Manual For The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition by Roger E. Meiners, Verified Chapters 1 - 22 Complete, Newest Version

,TABLE OF CONTENTS
BY BY BY




 Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 2. The Court Systems
BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
BY BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
BY BY BY




 Chapter 10. Contracts
BY BY




 Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 12. Business Organizations
BY BY BY




 Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
BY BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
BY BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
BY BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
BY BY BY




 Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
BY BY BY BY




 Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
BY BY BY




 Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
BY BY BY




 Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
BY BY BY




 Chapter 21. Environmental Law
BY BY BY




 Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY

,CHAPTER 1 BY




Table of Contents BY BY




Answer to Discussion Question ............................................................................................................... 1
BY BY BY




Answers to Case Questions ..................................................................................................................... 1
BY BY BY




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




Answer to Discussion Question BY BY BY




Should the common law maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” apply to an immigrant who speakslittle Engli
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY


sh and was not educated in the United States? How about for a tourist who does not speak English? Everyone
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


knows criminal acts are prohibited, but what about subtler rules that differ across countries and so may be mis
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


understood by foreigners? BY BY




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



nowledge of the law. Yet, as well known as this rule is, it is surprising how often it is proffered as an exc
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


use. (A Westlaw search cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include: Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super)
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


(lack of knowledge regarding the state‘s usury laws is no excuse for the inclusion of an illegal interest rat
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


e in a sales contract); and Plumlee v. Paddock (ignorance of thefact that the subject matter of the contrac
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


t was illegal was not excuse). The courts have provided a small exception to the rule when it comes to pe
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


ople in lack of English language skills. Consider Flanery v. Kuska, (defendant did not speak English was ad
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


vised by a friend that an answer to a complaint was not required); Ramon v. Dept. of Transportation, (no
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY B



English and an inability to understand the law required for an excuse); Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (I
Y BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


gnorance and with the fact that the municipality suffered no hardship in late lawsuit filing was an excuse
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


).


Answers to Case Questions BY BY BY




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


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


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


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


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


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



if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be sopick
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB


ed up and rescued, but would................. have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


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


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


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



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



whichdetermines whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal r
YB BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY



ules of the society-- BY BY BY


its customs and values. One limit is the extent to which society will allow the formal rules to be imposed
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY



when a crime is committed in odd circumstances. Here there was an intentional murder. Does the motive
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY B



for the murder, the effort to save several lives by sacrificing one
Y BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY

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



bout the desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY



There was a precedent for a light sentence in this case in U.S. law: U.S. v. Holmes, 20 F. Cas. 360 (No. 153
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


83) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers madeit to the only lifeb
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY BY BY BY



oat, which was far too overcrowded. The captain decided to save the women and children and threw sev
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY



eral men overboard. The lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to indict the captain from murder,
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY B



Yonly for manslaughter. He got a six month sentence.
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY



The British judge in the case here imposed the death penalty upon the person who survived. Thejudg
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB


e found it difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to make law by his own hand.The Cr
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY



own reduced the sentence to six months.
BY BY BY BY BY BY




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


erious illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their unavoidably dangerous products, eventhough they pos
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY BY


t a warning on the package and consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking? [Cipollone v.
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


Liggett Group, Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992)]
BY BY BY BY BY BY



Answer: The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting of warninglabel
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB



s on cigarettes, and since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been warned and are
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY



not due compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippoline case, since reviewed by the Supre
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


me Court, appears to be of limited impact since the victim was adjudged to have become addicted to cig
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


arettes before the warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette makers were held responsible for all he
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


alth problems associated with cigarettes, then, like alcohol and other dangerous products, the damages w
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY



ould likely be so high it would effectively ban the products. Presumably, in a free society if adults are cle
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


arly informed of the risks of products that cannot be made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcoho
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


l producers cannot take the dangers out of the products except at the margin by encouraging responsible
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY B



drinking and the like. Are drugs like cocaine different?
Y BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY




3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


trail bikes. The boys were riding on public streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck. The bikes had c
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


lear warning labels on the front stating they were only for off-
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


road use. The manual stated the bikes were not to be usedon public streets. The parents sued Honda. The
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


supreme court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a manufacturer liable when children are inju
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


red while riding one of its mini-
BY BY BY BY BY BY


trail bikes on apublic road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it unethical to make pr
BY BY BY YB BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


oducts like mini- BY BY


trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this will happen? [Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 7
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


27 P.2d 655 Sup. Ct, Wash., (1986)]
BY BY BY BY BY BY



Answer: The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product was safe for inte
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY



nded use. Safety instructions were clear; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can bedangero
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB



us--
baseballs are dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids jumpout of them; ther
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY BY BY


e is only so much that can be done to make the government the ―national nanny‖ asthe Washington Po
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY BY


st once said about excessive consumer protection. Parents must accept a high degree of responsible for t
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY



heir own children. BY BY




4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age could not work in th
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


e battery-
BY


making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the battery operation could causeharm to unborn ba
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY BY BY


bies. The company was concerned about possible legal liability for injury sufferedby babies of mothers wh
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY BY BY BY


o had worked in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the companypolicy was illegal. It was an “ex
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY YB BY BY BY BY BY BY


cuse for denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing the company to be unethic
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


al by allowing pregnant women who ignore the warnings to expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY


Workers v. Johnson Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)]
BY BY BY BY BY BY BY BY