SOLUTIONMANUAL c
TheLegalEnvironmentofBusiness,14thEdition
c c c c c c
byRogerE.Meiners, Chapters1-22,Complete
c c c c c c c c
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
c c c
Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
c c c c c c c
Chapter 2. The Court Systems
c c c c
Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
c c c c c
Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
c c c c c c c c
Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
c c c c c
Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
c c c c
Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
c c c c c c
Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
c c c c c
Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
c c c
Chapter 10. Contracts
c c
Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
c c c c c
Chapter 12. Business Organizations
c c c
Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
c c c c c c
Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
c c c c c c
Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
c c c c c
Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
c c c
Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
c c c c
Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
c c c
Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
c c c
Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
c c c
Chapter 21. Environmental Law
c c c
Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
c c c c c c c
,CHAPTER 1 c
Table of Contents c c
Answer to Discussion Question...................................................................................................................... 1
c c c
Answers to Case Questions ............................................................................................................................ 1
c c c
Answers to Ethics and Social Questions ......................................................................................................... 3
c c c c c
Answer to Discussion Question c c c
Should the common law maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” apply to an immigrant who speakslittle English and
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
was not educated in the United States? How about for a tourist who does not speak English? Everyone knows criminal
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
acts are prohibited, but what about subtler rules that differ across countries and so may be misunderstood by
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
foreigners?
c
Answer: It is generally true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have constructive
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
knowledge of the law. Yet, as well known as this rule is, it is surprising how often it is proffered as an excuse. (A
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
Westlaw search cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include: Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack of
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
knowledge regarding the state‘s usury laws is no excuse for the inclusion of an illegal interest rate in a sales
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
contract); and Plumlee v. Paddock (ignorance of thefact that the subject matter of the contract was illegal was
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
not excuse). The courts have provided a small exception to the rule when it comes to people in lack of English
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
language skills. Consider Flanery v. Kuska, (defendant did not speak English was advised by a friend that an
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
answer to a complaint was not required); Ramon v. Dept. of Transportation, (no English and an inability to
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
understand the law required for an excuse); Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (Ignorance and with the fact that
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
the municipality suffered no hardship in late lawsuit filing was an excuse).
c c c c c c c c c c c c
Answers to Case Questions c c c
1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht ...........................were cast away in
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
a storm on the high seas . . . and were compelled to put into an open boat. ......................... They had no supply
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
of water and no supply of food. . . . That on the eighteenth day . . . they ......................... suggested that one
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
should be sacrificed to save the rest. . . . That next day . . . they . . . went to the boy .............................. put a knife
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
into his throat and killed him . . . the three men fed upon the body.......................of the boy for four days; [then]
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and [they] were rescued. . . . and committed for trial. . . .
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be sopicked up and
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
rescued, but would ................................... have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
c c c c c c c c c c c c c
condition, was likely to have died before them ................. The real question in this case [is] whether killing
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
under the conditions set forth ............ be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to be immoral?
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
[Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)]
c c c c c c c c c c
Answer: This points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated by legal culture--whichdetermines
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal rules of the society--its
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
customs and values. One limit is the extent to which society will allow the formal rules to be imposed when a
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
crime is committed in odd circumstances. Here there was an intentional murder. Does the motive for the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
murder, the effort to save several lives by sacrificing one
c c c c c c c c c c
, life, make it a crime that should be punished? Not all crimes are treated the same. It also raisesquestions about the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
c c c c c c c c
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)
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
(C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers madeit to the only lifeboat, which
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
was far too overcrowded. The captain decided to save the women and children and threw several men
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
overboard. The lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to indict the captain from murder, only for
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
manslaughter. He got a six month sentence.
c c c c c c c
The British judge in the case here imposed the death penalty upon the person who survived. Thejudge found
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
it difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to make law by his own hand.The Crown reduced the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
sentence to six months.
c c c c
2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette manufacturers be liable for the serious
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their unavoidably dangerous products, eventhough they post a warning
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
on the package and consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking? [Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.,
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
505 U.S. 504 (1992)]
c c c c
Answer: The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting of warninglabels on
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
cigarettes, and since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been warned and are not due
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippoline case, since reviewed by the Supreme Court,
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
appears to be of limited impact since the victim was adjudged to have become addicted to cigarettes before the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette makers were held responsible for all health problems associated
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
with cigarettes, then, like alcohol and other dangerous products, the damages would likely be so high it would
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
effectively ban the products. Presumably, in a free society if adults are clearly informed of the risks of products
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
that cannot be made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcohol producers cannot take the dangers out of
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
the products except at the margin by encouraging responsible drinking and the like. Are drugs like cocaine
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
different?
c
3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-trail bikes. The boys were riding on public
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck. The bikes had clear warning labels on the front stating they were
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
only for off-road use. The manual stated the bikes were not to be usedon public streets. The parents sued Honda.
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
The supreme court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a manufacturer liable when children are injured
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
while riding one of its mini-trail bikes on apublic road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
unethical to make products like mini-trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this will happen?
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
[Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655 Sup. Ct, Wash., (1986)]
c c c c c c c c c c c c
Answer: The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product was safe for intended
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
use. Safety instructions were clear; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can bedangerous--baseballs
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
are dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids jumpout of them; there is only so much
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
that can be done to make the government the ―national nanny‖ asthe Washington Post once said about
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
excessive consumer protection. Parents must accept a high degree of responsible for their own children.
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age could not work in the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
battery-making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the battery operation could causeharm to unborn
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
babies. The company was concerned about possible legal liability for injury sufferedby babies of mothers who
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
had worked in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the companypolicy was illegal. It was an “excuse for
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing the company to be unethical by allowing
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
pregnant women who ignore the warnings to expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto Workers v. Johnson
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)]
c c c c c
Answer: The Court held it a form of sex discrimination to prevent women of child-bearing age from holding the more
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
dangerous jobs. The company argued that it did this to protect itself from possibleliability in case of damage to
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
babies and that the decision was ethical. The replacements for these workers were often men or more senior
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
women, who tended to be higher income workers, so this
c c c c c c c c c c
TheLegalEnvironmentofBusiness,14thEdition
c c c c c c
byRogerE.Meiners, Chapters1-22,Complete
c c c c c c c c
,TABLE OF CONTENTS
c c c
Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
c c c c c c c
Chapter 2. The Court Systems
c c c c
Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
c c c c c
Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
c c c c c c c c
Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
c c c c c
Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
c c c c
Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
c c c c c c
Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
c c c c c
Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
c c c
Chapter 10. Contracts
c c
Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
c c c c c
Chapter 12. Business Organizations
c c c
Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
c c c c c c
Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
c c c c c c
Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
c c c c c
Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
c c c
Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
c c c c
Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
c c c
Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
c c c
Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
c c c
Chapter 21. Environmental Law
c c c
Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
c c c c c c c
,CHAPTER 1 c
Table of Contents c c
Answer to Discussion Question...................................................................................................................... 1
c c c
Answers to Case Questions ............................................................................................................................ 1
c c c
Answers to Ethics and Social Questions ......................................................................................................... 3
c c c c c
Answer to Discussion Question c c c
Should the common law maxim “Ignorance of the law is no excuse” apply to an immigrant who speakslittle English and
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
was not educated in the United States? How about for a tourist who does not speak English? Everyone knows criminal
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
acts are prohibited, but what about subtler rules that differ across countries and so may be misunderstood by
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
foreigners?
c
Answer: It is generally true that ignorance of the law is no excuse. Citizens are deemed to have constructive
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
knowledge of the law. Yet, as well known as this rule is, it is surprising how often it is proffered as an excuse. (A
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
Westlaw search cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include: Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack of
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
knowledge regarding the state‘s usury laws is no excuse for the inclusion of an illegal interest rate in a sales
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
contract); and Plumlee v. Paddock (ignorance of thefact that the subject matter of the contract was illegal was
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
not excuse). The courts have provided a small exception to the rule when it comes to people in lack of English
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
language skills. Consider Flanery v. Kuska, (defendant did not speak English was advised by a friend that an
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
answer to a complaint was not required); Ramon v. Dept. of Transportation, (no English and an inability to
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
understand the law required for an excuse); Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (Ignorance and with the fact that
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
the municipality suffered no hardship in late lawsuit filing was an excuse).
c c c c c c c c c c c c
Answers to Case Questions c c c
1. Facts from an English judge’s decision in 1884: “The crew of an English yacht ...........................were cast away in
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
a storm on the high seas . . . and were compelled to put into an open boat. ......................... They had no supply
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
of water and no supply of food. . . . That on the eighteenth day . . . they ......................... suggested that one
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
should be sacrificed to save the rest. . . . That next day . . . they . . . went to the boy .............................. put a knife
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
into his throat and killed him . . . the three men fed upon the body.......................of the boy for four days; [then]
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
the boat was picked up by a passing vessel, and [they] were rescued. . . . and committed for trial. . . .
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
if the men had not fed upon the body of the boy they would probably not have survived to be sopicked up and
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
rescued, but would ................................... have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
c c c c c c c c c c c c c
condition, was likely to have died before them ................. The real question in this case [is] whether killing
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
under the conditions set forth ............ be or be not murder.” Do you consider the acts to be immoral?
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
[Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Queens Bench Division 273 (1884)]
c c c c c c c c c c
Answer: This points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated by legal culture--whichdetermines
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal rules of the society--its
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
customs and values. One limit is the extent to which society will allow the formal rules to be imposed when a
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
crime is committed in odd circumstances. Here there was an intentional murder. Does the motive for the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
murder, the effort to save several lives by sacrificing one
c c c c c c c c c c
, life, make it a crime that should be punished? Not all crimes are treated the same. It also raisesquestions about the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
desirability of not giving judges flexibility in sentencing.
c c c c c c c c
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)
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
(C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers madeit to the only lifeboat, which
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
was far too overcrowded. The captain decided to save the women and children and threw several men
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
overboard. The lifeboat was rescued. The grand jury refused to indict the captain from murder, only for
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
manslaughter. He got a six month sentence.
c c c c c c c
The British judge in the case here imposed the death penalty upon the person who survived. Thejudge found
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
it difficult to rule that every man on board had the right to make law by his own hand.The Crown reduced the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
sentence to six months.
c c c c
2. Smoking is a serious health hazard. Cigarettes are legal. Should cigarette manufacturers be liable for the serious
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
illnesses and untimely deaths caused by their unavoidably dangerous products, eventhough they post a warning
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
on the package and consumers voluntarily assume the health risks by smoking? [Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc.,
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
505 U.S. 504 (1992)]
c c c c
Answer: The general rule that exists now is that since the government has ordered the posting of warninglabels on
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
cigarettes, and since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been warned and are not due
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippoline case, since reviewed by the Supreme Court,
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
appears to be of limited impact since the victim was adjudged to have become addicted to cigarettes before the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
warning label was ordered in 1964. If cigarette makers were held responsible for all health problems associated
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
with cigarettes, then, like alcohol and other dangerous products, the damages would likely be so high it would
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
effectively ban the products. Presumably, in a free society if adults are clearly informed of the risks of products
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
that cannot be made safe, they accept the risk. Tobacco and alcohol producers cannot take the dangers out of
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
the products except at the margin by encouraging responsible drinking and the like. Are drugs like cocaine
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
different?
c
3. Two eight-year-old boys were seriously injured when riding Honda mini-trail bikes. The boys were riding on public
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
streets, ran a stop sign, and were hit by a truck. The bikes had clear warning labels on the front stating they were
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
only for off-road use. The manual stated the bikes were not to be usedon public streets. The parents sued Honda.
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
The supreme court of Washington said one basic issue existed: “Is a manufacturer liable when children are injured
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
while riding one of its mini-trail bikes on apublic road in violation of manufacturer and parental warnings?” Is it
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
unethical to make products like mini-trail bikes children will use when we know accidents like this will happen?
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
[Baughn v. Honda Motor Co., 727 P.2d 655 Sup. Ct, Wash., (1986)]
c c c c c c c c c c c c
Answer: The court found no liability for the manufacturers. There was no defect; the product was safe for intended
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
use. Safety instructions were clear; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can bedangerous--baseballs
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
are dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids jumpout of them; there is only so much
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
that can be done to make the government the ―national nanny‖ asthe Washington Post once said about
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
excessive consumer protection. Parents must accept a high degree of responsible for their own children.
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
4. Johnson Controls adopted a “fetal protection policy” that women of childbearing age could not work in the
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
battery-making division of the company. Exposure to lead in the battery operation could causeharm to unborn
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
babies. The company was concerned about possible legal liability for injury sufferedby babies of mothers who
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
had worked in the battery division. The Supreme Court held the companypolicy was illegal. It was an “excuse for
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
denying women equal employment opportunities.” Is the Court forcing the company to be unethical by allowing
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
pregnant women who ignore the warnings to expose their babies to the lead? [United Auto Workers v. Johnson
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
Controls, 499 U.S. 187 (1991)]
c c c c c
Answer: The Court held it a form of sex discrimination to prevent women of child-bearing age from holding the more
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
dangerous jobs. The company argued that it did this to protect itself from possibleliability in case of damage to
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
babies and that the decision was ethical. The replacements for these workers were often men or more senior
c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c
women, who tended to be higher income workers, so this
c c c c c c c c c c
