=
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS
SOLUTION MANUAL THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH
EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS, VERIFIED ALL CHAPTERS 1 - 22,
COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS GRADED A+
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
➢ Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
➢ Chapter 2. The Court Systems
➢ Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
➢ Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
➢ Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
➢ Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
➢ Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
➢ Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
➢ Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
➢ Chapter 10. Contracts
➢ Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
➢ Chapter 12. Business Organizations
➢ Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
➢ Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
➢ Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
➢ Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
➢ Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
➢ Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
➢ Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
➢ Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS
➢ Chapter 21. Environmental Law
➢ Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
CHAPTER 1
Table of Contents
Answer to Discussion Question ................................................................................................................................. 1
Answers to Case Questions ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Answers to Ethics and Social Questions ................................................................................................................. 3
Answer to Discussion Question
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 cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include:
Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack of knowledge regarding the state ‘s usury laws are 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 excuse). The courts have provided a
small exception to the rule when it comes to people in lack of English language skills. Consider
Flanery v. Kuska, (defendant did not speak English was advised by a friend that an answer to a
complaint was not required); Ramon v. Dept. of Transportation, (no English and an inability to
understand the law required for an excuse); Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (Ignorance and with
the fact that the municipality suffered no hardship in late lawsuit filing was an excuse).
Answers to Case Questions
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
sopicked up and rescued, but would ... have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS
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 points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated by legal culture--which
determines whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal
rules of the 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 (No.
15383) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers madeit 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 from murder, only for manslaughter. He got a six-month sentence.
The British judge in the case here 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 since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been
warned and are not due compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippolini 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 alcohol
and 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 encouraging responsible drinking and the like. Are
drugs like cocaine different?
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
usedon 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 apublic 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; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can be
dangerous--baseballs are dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids jump
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS
SOLUTION MANUAL THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH
EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS, VERIFIED ALL CHAPTERS 1 - 22,
COMPLETE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS GRADED A+
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
➢ Chapter 1. Today’s Business Environment: Law and Ethics
➢ Chapter 2. The Court Systems
➢ Chapter 3. Trials and Resolving Disputes
➢ Chapter 4. The Constitution: Focus on Application to Business
➢ Chapter 5. Criminal Law and Business
➢ Chapter 6. Elements of Torts
➢ Chapter 7. Business Torts and Product Liability
➢ Chapter 8. Real and Personal Property
➢ Chapter 9. Intellectual Property
➢ Chapter 10. Contracts
➢ Chapter 11. Domestic and International Sales
➢ Chapter 12. Business Organizations
➢ Chapter 13. Negotiable Instruments, Credit, and Bankruptcy
➢ Chapter 14. Agency and the Employment Relationship
➢ Chapter 15. Employment and Labor Regulations
➢ Chapter 16. Employment Discrimination
➢ Chapter 17. The Regulatory Process
➢ Chapter 18. Securities Regulation
➢ Chapter 19. Consumer Protection
➢ Chapter 20. Antitrust Law
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS
➢ Chapter 21. Environmental Law
➢ Chapter 22. The International Legal Environment of Business
CHAPTER 1
Table of Contents
Answer to Discussion Question ................................................................................................................................. 1
Answers to Case Questions ......................................................................................................................................... 1
Answers to Ethics and Social Questions ................................................................................................................. 3
Answer to Discussion Question
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 cases finds hundreds of examples). Examples include:
Deluco v. Dezi (Conn. Super) (lack of knowledge regarding the state ‘s usury laws are 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 excuse). The courts have provided a
small exception to the rule when it comes to people in lack of English language skills. Consider
Flanery v. Kuska, (defendant did not speak English was advised by a friend that an answer to a
complaint was not required); Ramon v. Dept. of Transportation, (no English and an inability to
understand the law required for an excuse); Yurechko v. County of Allegheny, (Ignorance and with
the fact that the municipality suffered no hardship in late lawsuit filing was an excuse).
Answers to Case Questions
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
sopicked up and rescued, but would ... have died of famine. The boy, being in a much weaker
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
, =
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS, 14TH EDITION BY ROGER E. MEINERS
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 points out that the legal system has limits. Its acceptability is dictated by legal culture--which
determines whether law will be enforced, obeyed, avoided, or abused. It is limited by the informal
rules of the 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 (No.
15383) (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1842). The case involved a sinking ocean liner. Several passengers madeit 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 from murder, only for manslaughter. He got a six-month sentence.
The British judge in the case here 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 since the dangers of smoking are well known, consumers have been
warned and are not due compensation if they kill themselves by smoking. The Cippolini 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 alcohol
and 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 encouraging responsible drinking and the like. Are
drugs like cocaine different?
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
usedon 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 apublic 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; the parents let the boys ride the bikes. Anything can be
dangerous--baseballs are dangerous when they hit the head, swings are dangerous when kids jump
The Legal Environment of Business, 14th Edition
