Term Paper on "Business Law and Ethics"

Quoted Instructions for "Business Law and Ethics" Assignment:

The essay comprises answers to eight (8) of the following questions. These questions cover topics of law and ethics covered in this course and online materials. Each answer should be at least one paragraph (several sentences) but not more than ½ page.

Prepare your answers in rich Text format (.rtf) using Microsoft Word® or similar program. Use one-inch margins on all four sides. Use 12-point type and single-spacing.

1.Two twelve-year old boys were seriously injured while riding mini-bikes given to them by their parents. The boys were riding on a public street and ran through a stop sign and were hit by a truck. One boy was wearing a helmet; the other was not. The manufacturer had placed a warning placard on the mini-bikes stating that they were for off-road use only. The owner*****s manual stated that the mini-bikes were not to be used on public streets, and that riders should wear an approved helmet. The parents sued the manufacturer. The Supreme Court heard the case and said that there was one basic issue: *****Is a manufacturer liable when youths are injured while riding one of its mini-bikes on a public road in violation of the manufacturer*****s warnings?***** What do you think the court held? What reasoning should the court apply? Is it unethical to make products like these mini-bikes that will be used by youth who lack the skills or judgment to keep safe?

2. XDog (XD) is headquartered in Burlington, Vermont. It sells *****Xtreme***** hot dog franchises nationally. Its contracts are governed by Vermont law. Franchise policy is determined in Vermont, but daily monitoring of franchisees is done by district offices that report to Vemont. XD terminated an Arizona franchise held by McCain, a resident of Arizona where the restaurant was located. McCain refused to vacate the restaurant, so XD filed suit in federal court in Vermont, claiming that McCain was in breach of contract and sued for damages and for an injunction. McCain claimed that the Vermont federal court did not have jurisdiction. The district judge held that under Vermont*****s *****long-arm***** statute, the contract McCain signed made him subject to litigation in Vermont. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that fairness and due process did not allow jurisdiction in Vermont. What do you think the Supreme Court should decide?

3. Squinter filed suit in Wyoming against Dr. Vision claiming that Dr. Vision committed malpractice in Squinter*****s ophthalmic care. Squinter attempted to take the doctor*****s deposition, but twice the doctor failed to show, despite notice of the deposition having been properly served. Squinter then filed a motion for sanctions. Neither Dr. Vision nor his attorney appeared at the hearing on the motion. The law gives a trial court discretion to impose a variety of sanctions, including an order to appear for deposition, a fine and/or imprisonment, or a default judgment that includes an award for compensatory damages and attorneys***** fees. Assuming you were the judge, what would your ruling be?

4. An employer and a union disputed what happened at an arbitration hearing. The employer challenged the arbitration award in federal court and subpoenaed the arbitrator to testify about what happened at the arbitration at which he presided. Can the arbitrator be compelled to testify?

5. The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act (7 USC 6301-6311) mandates that mushroom handlers pay assessments that are used primarily to fund generic advertising that are intended to promote mushroom sales. Atomic Mushrooms refused to pay claiming the Act violates the First Amendment and forces them to contribute to advertising it does not care to support. Atomic Mushrooms felt it should be allowed to spend on advertising as it sees fit and not by government regulation. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) rejected Atomic*****s administrative appeal to not pay the assessments. Atomic appealed, but the district court upheld USDA*****s ruling, holding that the requirement to pay for advertising is part of a larger regulatory scheme to benefit the mushroom industry. The appeals court reversed, holding that payments were not part of a comprehensive statutory agricultural marketing program and therefore could not be justified. The USDA appealed. Which position is correct?

6. Wantta Leave was looking at new cars at a dealership. She gave her keys to a salesman who said he needed them to determine the trade-in value. When Wantta decided she did not want to buy a car, the salesman said he could not find her keys ***** claiming he lost them. But after about a half hour, the salesman finally gave Wantta her keys, which he thought was a good joke. Wantta sued and was awarded $5,000 in punitive damages. What tort was claimed? Do you think the damages would be upheld on appeal?

7. The buyers of a residential property mistakenly believed that the 10-acre parcel they purchased for a new home included a driveway entrance on Waterfall Road. They later learned that their home*****s driveway connected to Donna Marie Lane, a gravel road that also provided access to Waterfall Road for twenty other 10-acre parcels in the development. The developer and the real estate agent had pointed out the easy access to Waterfall Road, and the buyer expressed her strong desire to have an address on Waterfall Road. But neither the developer nor the real estate agent indicated the buyer would have an address on Waterfall Road. The buyers did not examine the existing survey nor did they order a new survey, either of which would have shown the buyer*****s driveway would be on Donna Marie Lane, not Waterfall Road. Nevertheless, the buyers brought suit for fraud against the developer and the real estate agent. Did the buyers have a basis for fraud?

8. The Greyhawks owned 100 acres of mountain land in Virginia. Their neighbors, the Falcons, had long claimed ownership of 999 acres, including 103 acres that the Greyhawks want to buy. The Falcons stated they did not want to sell. The Greyhawks did careful research about the title to the Falcons***** land and discovered that title to the 103-acre parcel had never been issued to anyone in the history of the state and that the Falcons had never paid taxes on the parcel. The Greyhawks filed claim to the land on the grounds it was *****waste and unappropriated*****. Should the Greyhawks get title to the land?