Business Law: Case Study Applications Case Study Analyses Law Paper

Business Law: Case Study Applications
Name:
Institutional Affiliation:
Date:
Business Law: Case Study Applications
Introduction
The legal application in business transactions undertaken in daily life necessitates the study of business law to help traverse the hurdles of the commercial world. The knowledge attained in the study of business law can be applied in assessing the suitability of contracts and practices enacted by individuals and/or corporations. The concept of business law encompasses ethicality &morality in transactions, employment and labor practices, manufacturing and the criminality realized as a result of business transactions and contractual engagements. The objective of business law is to evaluate the adherence to rules and regulations that govern the business world. This paper discusses the different legal applications involved in business applications and real estate scenarios using real-life examples of transactions and business relationships. The paper also evaluates the applicability of different types of contracts and settlement methods and the implications they have on the involved parties upon adoption. Each of the case studies tackled in the paper illustrates the legal applications in a particular business scenario which requires different approaches.
Case Study One: Donald Margolin versus Novelty Now Inc. and Funny Face
Donald Margolin and his company, Donald Margolin Inc., are suing Novelty Now Inc. and Funny Face for alleged negligence. Funny Face is an aftershave lotion that was manufactured as a result of a contract between three men (Chris, Matt, and Ian) and Novelty Now Inc. Donald filed the suit after using the Funny Face cream that turned his face to a permanent shade of blue and is seeking medical costs and compensation for the facial damages and business reputation.
Rules of jurisdiction
Several jurisdiction aspects are present in these scenarios due to the territoriality and state differences between the involved parties. Donald Margolin and his company filed the suit in New York while the agreement between Chris, Matt &Ian and Novelty Now required that all the conflicts concerning the product were to be brought to the state of Florida. Buxbaum (2009) talking about the aspect of jurisdiction asserted that jurisdiction is an essential part of any sovereign state and it applies within its borders, operating under territorial limitations, and whose assumptions would create conflicts with other states. Since state courts are not able to handle cases that involve different states, i.e. New York, California, and Florida in our case, Federal court will be the most likely choice for the case. The case has more than two defendants who have different roles in the case which might bring the aspect of several openings under the same case. This factor, aligned with the interstate situation involved in the case makes the adoption of concurrent jurisdiction the approach to handle the case in its entirety. Longarm principle would be applicable if the case was to be determined in New York. This would mean that a New York court would enact jurisdiction over both Funny Face and Novelty Now Inc. even if they are still in Florida.
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Several considerations can be made by the involved parties which can aid them in moving away from litigation to adopt alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Henry (2000) explained SDR as a method of conciliation of justice through methods like mediation and arbitration where the parties engage in an agreement to settle the case outside the courtroom. Mediation involves the use of a third party (mediator) who continually works with the conflicting parties to formulate a mutual agreement. One of the disadvantages of mediation, in this case, is the time consumption in coordinating the meetings since the parties are spread across three different states. The agreements that are formulated during the mediation process are non-binding which means that the parties are not obligated to keep their promises and therefore can be detrimental especially to Mr. Margolin. The nonbinding nature of the agreement, however, offers the chance to pursue litigation if one of the parties is not satisfied with the settlement or does not adhere to the original agreement. The process is also very confidential which means that private and damaging information especially about Funny Face and Novelty Now about their product. The confidentiality would, however, translate to risk exposure for prospective customers of Funny Face if the company were to continue with the production. Mediation gives control to the parties which ensures that the final agreement interests both parties and does not lead to one party exploiting the other. Unlike mediation, negotiation does not involve a third party but derives from the compromise of the parties to achieve a middle ground through integrative negotiations between and/or among the parties. Negotiation would bring the convenience of the parties choosing the timelines and places to meet for the negotiations. The method gives control of the process to the parties which mean that they choose the results which are favorable to all the involved parties. The convenience of negotiations is enhanced by the choice of being represented by their attorneys. This would mean that the two parties operating outside their states can choose to be represented which can help in saving time during the process.
ADR is an interest-based method of settlement where the parties choose the method that will suit them best (Henry, 2000). In this case, the three parties would choose different methods depending on the personal or corporate implications that the choice would have on them. Funny Face would most likely choose the negotiation method as they would have the chance to send their attorney to the meetings. This would reduce the traveling cost and ensure that the process saves time. Funny face and Novelty Now would be favored by the negotiation method as it would ensure that the save their business image as the proceedings do not include public participation. `Mr., Margolin would prefer the mediation method as it would offer the advice of a subjective party who has no interest in the outcome of the case. The opportunity to pursue litigation availed by the use of mediation would motivate Margolin to try the method as it would offer a chance to seek court intervention if he is not satisfied with the final decision.
Criminal Law and Potential Criminal Acts
Criminal cases operate in the assumption that a conviction leads to a substantial loss of liberty or incur a significant amount of personal damage and position in the community (Sage Publications Inc., 2019). A corporate is criminally liable for the decisions that its officers commit in its interest while for the officers the liability is enforced for the individual committing of the crime, the crime of their co-conspirators, aiding the commissioning of the crime, and for the crimes of the perpetrators they assist (Doyle, 2013). This shows that the corporate is only held liable for a criminal if the act was committed to the interest of the corporation. Officers, on the other hand, can be held liable if the crime benefits them or they were involved in any way during the crime.
In this case, the officers involved in the original crime were Chris and a representative from Novelty Now where they agreed to substitute PYR for the substance in the original formula. The main reason for the choice of PYR was because of its low cost but it was harmful and led to the permanent discoloration of Margolin’s face. Novelty Now Inc. and Funny Face would be held liable for the criminal activity because it holds the potential to affect the public if the product is still in use. The decision to use the chemical emulsifier was to reduce the cost of production which was in the interest of both companies which would make them liable in the crime. The two companies agreed to use the component in the Funny Face formula and launched the product to the general public gaining from the low cost of PYR used in the manufacture. Every Funny Face product in stores holds a potential crime by both corporations.
Chris and the Novelty Now representative involved in the decision making to use PYR as a component would also be held liable for individual crimes since they were the co-conspirators in the crime. They both knowingly decided to use a substance with the potential to harm the general public. Matt and Ian could argue that they were not involved in the actual decision making personally but would be covered in the Funny Face suit as co-founders. '…for the crimes whose commission they aid and abet' (Doyle, 2013). Matt and Ian are part of Funny Face and they have funded the project and consented the use of PYR which means that they were co-conspirators in the crime. The representative and Chris decided on behalf of Novelty Now and Funny Face respectively which means that both companies as well as Chris and the representative being liable for personal involvement.
Ethical considerations
Ethical behavior in business decisions refers to acting according to the principles of duty by maximizing satisfaction and reducing any potential harm in a business decision (Tapas, 2012). The potential of harm, in this case, was realized early in the stage and the companies overlooked the fact that PYR was not approved for use by the FDA. One of the guidelines in ethical decision making is to lay out all the affected parties i.e. the customers and low-cost production. The ethical decision, in this case, is that Funny Face and Novelty Now gain profits at the expense of customers hence the general public since the product was advertized through different types of media. Identifying the consequences of a decision is also a consideration that is involved in ethical decision making. Funny Face and Novelty now knew that PYR was not FDA approved but did not bother to research why it was so. They abandoned their ethicality by accepting the use of a non-approved product to increase their profit margin at the expense of the end-user of their product.
Case Study Two: Contracts and Landlord-Tenant Law
Description
Sam works from his apartment working on a new invention of a safety product; the barking machine. He agrees to ship 1000 units to a national chain store by only does so verbally. Sam receives an eviction letter due to his invention disturbing his neighbors since he is not allowed to work from his apartment. He also receives a letter from the chin store demanding him to deliver on his promise of 1000 units of his machine.
Contractual Elements between Sam and the Chain Store
Several elements must be adhered to in the formulation of a valid contract. USLegal.com details six elements that lead to the formation of a liable contract i.e. to offer, acceptance, consideration, mutual obligation, competency and capacity and a written account (not universally) applicable.
An offer is an initial pledge to act towards an agreement. It involves the promise of an offeror (Sam) and offeree (chain store) to deliver or act towards a mutual offer. In this case, Sam offers to supply 1000 units of his invention to the chain store. The offer, however, does not detail the specifics of the offer since there is no timeline given when the delivery was to be done. The prices of the machines are depended on Sam’s ability to deliver on his offer.
Acceptance is the second element of contact and is the assenting to the terms stated in the offer. For acceptance to hold as valid, the offeree must know about the details of the offer and intents to accept the terms. It also requires an unconditional agreement to the terms of the offer. In this case, the chain store manager does not know the details of the working conditions of Sam and just accepts the offer without due diligence on the feasibility of the offer. The lack of the due diligence of the manager makes the fault fall on his part due to his lack of enough information on how Sam intends to hold hid end of the bargain.
Consideration refers to the exchange of vales where the parties consider something of value to induce the other into agreeing to the involvement in the contract. The consideration, in this case, is only Sam's promise to deliver the promise. The Chain Store does not offer consideration of any kind to Sam during the agreement and assumes that his promise will be the only motivation for Sam to deliver the offer. Sin...