{br} STUCK with your assignment? {br} When is it due? {br} Get FREE assistance. Page Title: {title}{br} Page URL: {url}
UK: +44 748 007-0908, USA: +1 917 810-5386 [email protected]
  1. QUESTION

choose one of the options below for discussion. Be sure to elaborate and explain.   

 

 

BUS 206 Final Project Guidelines and Rubric

Overview Business law impacts our everyday lives, both personally and professionally. Businesses enter contracts, manufacture goods, sell services and products, and engage in employment and labor practices—activities that must all adhere to certain laws and regulations. Recognizing and evaluating legal issues is a fundamental skill that will help you navigate commercial relationships and avoid potential problems in the business world. The final assessment for this course will require you to analyze three case studies and produce a short report for each. You will apply your legal knowledge and your understanding of the types of business organizations.

  • Apply appropriate elements of the U.S. legal system and the U.S. Constitution to business scenarios for impacting decisions in authentic situations
  • Apply concepts of ethics, morality, and civil and criminal law to business scenarios for informed corporate decision making
  • Analyze the basic elements of a contract and a quasi-contract for their application to commercial and real estate scenarios
  • Differentiate between the various types of business organizations for informing rights and responsibilities Prompt Imagine yourself as a paralegal working in a law office that has been tasked with reviewing three current cases.

You will review the case studies and compose a short report for each, applying your legal knowledge and understanding of the types of business organizations. In each of the three reports, you will focus on areas of law covered in this course.

Case Study One focuses on the legal system, criminal law, and ethics. Case Study One Chris, Matt, and Ian, who live in California, have decided to start a business selling an aftershave lotion called Funny Face over the internet. They contract with Novelty Now Inc., a company based in Florida, to manufacture and distribute the product. Chris frequently meets with a representative from Novelty Now to design the product and to plan marketing and distribution strategies. In fact, to increase the profit margin, Chris directs Novelty Now to substitute PYR (a lowcost chemical emulsifier) for the compound in Novelty Now’s original formula. PYR is not FDA approved. Funny Face is marketed nationally on the radio and in newspapers, as well as on the web and Facebook. Donald Margolin, a successful CEO and public speaker, buys one bottle of Funny Face over the internet. After he uses it once, his face turns a permanent shade of blue. Donald Margolin and his company, Donald Margolin Empire Inc., file suit in the state of New York against Novelty Now Inc. and Chris, Matt, and Ian, alleging negligence and seeking medical costs and compensation for the damage to his face and business reputation. It is discovered that PYR caused Margolin’s skin discoloration. The website for Funny Face states that anyone buying their product cannot take Chris, Matt, and Ian to court. Novelty Now’s contract with the three men states that all disputes must be brought in the state of Florida. Specifically, the following critical elements must be addressed: A. Apply the rules of jurisdiction to the facts of this case and determine what jurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin’s lawsuit against Funny Face and Novelty Now, respectively. Consider federal court, state court, and long arm principles in your analysis. B. Assume all parties agree to pursue alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR appropriate for this case. Be sure to define the characteristics of each in your answer. C. Applying what you have learned about ADR, which type would each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) prefer and why? D. Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss whether or not corporations and/or corporate officers may be held liable for criminal acts. E. Identify, per the classification of crimes in the text, any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or Novelty Now. F. Assume the use of the emulsifier PYR, at the direction of Chris, is a criminal offense. Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss the potential criminal liability of Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now. Include support for your conclusion. G. Apply at least three guidelines of ethical decision-making to evaluate ethical issues within the case study.

 

 

Subject Law and governance Pages 4 Style APA

Answer

CASE 7-2: United States of America v. Park (p. 166 in the text)

            Park was charged with negligence which led to violation 301 (k) of Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. In the violation, Park had failed to prevent infestation of food in their warehouse, leading to adulteration and contamination of food. This assignment presents an argument on the legitimacy of the ruling which found Park guilty of negligence which resulted in violation Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act.

            The charges against which Par was convicted included insanitary conditions of the warehouses, imperfect working of sanitation system at Baltimore warehouse, infestation of the warehouse with rodents and contamination which lead to adulteration  of the food within the provision of 21 U.S.C. 342 (a) (3) and (4 ).  The Company; Acme Markets, Inc pleaded guilty of the charges. Whether Pak should have been charged with criminal offense is a question of his responsibility, direct or indirect as far as the case was concerned. As the presidents and chief executive officer of the company, Park conceded that he was responsible for providing sanitary conditions for food offered for sale to the public in the entire operation of the company. He further admitted that he was responsible for any results which occurs in the company” regarding the system for handling sanitation. In addition to the admissions, the Mr. Park had been duly informed about the sanitary status of the warehouse following two rounds of inspections of the same by the Chief of Compliance of the FDAs Baltimore office (United States v. Park, 1975). I therefore think Park should have been convicted of the violation.  The argument that he did not “believe there was anything he could have done more constructively that what he found was being done” is itself a testimony that he failed as the chief executive officer because he acts on behalf of the corporation whose president he was. Cases such as Cf. Morissette v, United States 342 U.S. 246, 258 (Cf. Morissette v. United State, 1952) were held because corporate employees who have a responsible share in the furtherance of the transaction which the statute outlaws are subject to the criminal provisions of the Act. The liability of managerial officers does have to be pegged on their knowledge or, or personal participation in the act made criminal by the statute. The same was the basis on which State v. Burnam, 71 Wash. 199, 128 P. 218 (State v. Burnam, 1912)

References

CASE 7-2: United States of America v. Park (p. 166 in the text)

State v. Burnam, 71 Wash. 199, 128 P. 218 (1912)

Cf. Morissette v, United States 342 U.S. 246, 258, (1952)

This question has been answered

 

Related Samples

WeCreativez WhatsApp Support
Our customer support team is here to answer your questions. Ask us anything!
👋 Hi, how can I help?