Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 6


Question :

TCO B. Infuriated when Harry Reid is re-elected during the 2010 fall election, the Republican National Committee decides to take matters into its own hands. In 2011, the House of Representatives passes a new "Freedom isn't Free Act" that requires that anyone who wants to vote in the 2012 presidential election must prove that they paid at least $200 in federal income tax in the past year, including people aged 18 (who typically are deducted on their parents' returns and do not pay income tax). Anyone who received the "earned income credit" is barred from voting unless they return the payment from the government. Proof of payment of the tax can be made by showing a copy of the prior year's W2, a copy of the prior year's tax return, or a signed statement from the IRS stating that the payment of more than $200 in federal income tax has been made. Citizens who do not pay taxes can still vote if they donate $200.00 to the federal government as voluntary income tax and get a statement from the IRS that they have done so. The law sunsets on December 31, 2012. List two bases under which someone impacted by this law could argue to have the law overturned. Student Answer: The first basis is easy. This is a blatant violation of the 24th amendment. The 24th amendment specifically outlaws the collection of any kind of tax to earn the right to vote. These taxes were called poll taxes. I would also argue that this violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. I see the above law as an attempt to restrict the right to vote for lower income people. This looks like they are denying me the opportunity to vote. Instructor Students will get credit for listing any of these two: unconstitutional, equal Explanation: protection, violation of 24th Amendment, "unlawful poll tax," violation of the 14th Amendment, discrimination, First Amendment. 7.5 points each. If any student lists cases that are listed as precedent in the following case that explains this, this also gives credit. If a student lists the actual Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, then that also counts. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0383_0663_ZO.html Points Received: 15 of 15 Comments: Robert: Right-this law is clearly unconstitutional and the 24th Amendment is the best claim. TCO F. Target sells bags that appear to be Prada, Gucci, and Coach handbags but are priced much lower. The brand labels on the bags say "Pardna," "Guchy," and "Coaching." The prices are about 65% less than the typical brand-name bags. If the owners of the Prada, Coach, and Gucci names sue Target for palming off or counterfeiting, what would they need to prove to try to win? Do you think they would win? (short answer) According to the Trademark Counterfeiting Act and the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act they must prove the defendant trafficked or attempted to traffic the goods, the defendant transported the goods, the defendant knowingly used a couterfeit marking, and they knew the marking was couterfeit. I do not believe they would win a suit against them because the names are far enough from the original to be considered a knockoff. I am sure that Target would not be trying to pass these knockoffs off as originals so Prada

2. Question :

Student Answer:

and the others would be wasting their time. Instructor Explanation: In order to sue for palming off, the owners would need to show that the bags would create consumer confusion. On page 516, the author of the textbook uses the example of DeBiers instead of DeBeers (diamonds) as a potentially confusing name. The name changes in the problem are not that similar and are probably not going to confuse someone but this is short answer. As long as the student says "potentially confusing," give credit whichever way they say the outcome would be. Points Received: 11 of 15 Comments: Robert: You are on the right track here with respect to consumer product confusion, though palming off is likely the best claim. In order to sue for palming off, the owners would need to show that the bags would create consumer confusion. On page 516, the author of the textbook uses the example of DeBiers instead of DeBeers (diamonds) as a potentially confusing name. The name changes in the problem are not that similar and are probably not going to confuse someone.
(TCO C) Bud Johnson owns a General Motors dealership in Pierre, South Dakota. At the request and expense of General Motors, Bud traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, for purposes of the demonstration of a new vehicle called the Roughrider, designed to compete against the current offering of SUVs. Bud went to the proving grounds in the desert around Phoenix and spent a day watching the vehicle demonstrations. Bud and other dealers drove the vehicles, and much dust resulted from their driving. A few weeks later, Bud became ill with flu-like symptoms. He was finally diagnosed as having coccidioidomycosis or "valley fever." Valley fever is a disease well known to Arizona residents, and most have had it if they have lived there over 10 years. Newcomers are particularly vulnerable to the disease because the exposure to dust seems to build up immunity among the residents.

3. Question :

Bud became quite ill and brought suit against the car manufacturer that invited him for its failure to warn him about the valley fever phenomenon before he came out to the testing grounds. Answer the following questions, and use cases and theories from the text to support your arguments:

Was there negligence in the failure of General Motors to warn Bud? (15 points)

Discuss all defenses General Motors may have. (15 points)

Does strict liability in torts apply to this situation? Why or why not? (10 points)

Student Answer:

There was definite negligence here in my opinion. There are four elements to determine negligence. General Motors had the duty (responsibility) to make sure the area used for testing would not harm the participants. General Motors failed in this duty. It does not matter if they knew the dust would cause Valley Fever or not. It is easy to see that by not warning participants that the dust could cause Valley Fever, the participants did not protect themselves so Mr. Johnson

caught Valley Fever. The fourth element is that there was actual harm. Mr. Johnson became very sick. This would be damage. General Motors could try a couple of things. They could try comparative fault. This would be that Mr. Johnson was driving harder than the test was intended thereby throwing all the dust in the air. Mr. Johnson would share some of the responsibility for contributing to the harm. General Motors could also argue that Mr. Johnson assumed the risks when he attended a test in the desert. Mr. Johnson knew that driving hard in the desert would throw a lot of dust in the air. Mr. Johnson assumed the risks of harm to himself when he started testing the vehicle. I do not believe that strict liability would apply in this case. This is a close one, but General Motors did not create the Valley Fever or the dust that causes it. Strict liability refers to a product that is manufactured improperly that causes harm. Although General Motors crated an offroad vehicle that threw up dust, the dust did not result from the manufacturing of those off-road vehicles. The dust would have come up with even a bicycle. Instructor Explanation: Students will identify, explain, and apply all of the elements of negligence to the
first question. For the second question, the student would identify, explain, and apply the three defenses to negligence and discuss foreseeability. Strict liability applies to product liability with respect to manufacturing defects. Nothing about the air in Arizona is a result of a manufacturing defect. (You have to say more than just yes or no to get full credit.)

Points Received: Comments:

40 of 40 Robert: You covered this scenario quite well, considering Bud's negligence claim and relevant defenses. As you note, there is no strict product liability claim because there is no defective product here.
TCO D: Barney and his 16-year-old son BamBam are riding in Fred's car. Fred had taken some prescription medication that morning that stated on the bottle, "Warning, may cause drowsiness." The truck in front of them suffers a blow-out, and swerves uncontrollably. The tire remnants fly into the road, Fred swerves and hits a car to his left. He avoids hitting the truck with the blow-out but suffers damage to the left side of his car. BamBam hits his head on the side of the car, getting a concussion and permanently losing the sight in his right eye. Fred has state law required auto insurance with the minimum policy limits. Fred's wife, Wilma, immediately calls Betty, BamBam's mom, and apologizes when she finds out about BamBam losing his eye. Wilma says to Betty, "Please don't worry. We will pay for anything the insurance doesn't cover, including the loss of BamBam's sight and anything else he needs to recover and live a normal life." Betty sobs and says, "You are too good to us. We can't accept that." Wilma says, "Of course you can." Betty cries harder and says, "Thank you so much but (unintelligible)" and hangs up. Fred and Wilma own a house worth $450,000, a car worth $20,000, a full-size T. rex skeleton for which a museum has offered $200,000 in the past, and some stocks and bonds worth $700,000. A lawsuit ensues and a judgment against Fred and for BamBam is entered for $300,000. The insurance company paid their cap of $250,000, leaving $50,000 remaining due. Fred and Wilma immediately pay BamBam $50,000. Further, Wilma buys a designer eye-patch for BamBam made specifically by Calvin Klein

4. Question :

with a picture of Fred and Wilma's daughter, Pebbles, on it. Wilma hugs BamBam when she brings over his new eye patch and says, "Anything. Anything you need. We will take care of it for you." Fred rolls his eyes at Barney, and Barney sighs and shakes his head. Betty and Wilma both cry at how adorable BamBam looks with his new eye patch. Barney buys BamBam a new car, specially designed for people with one eye. Wilma finds out and calls Betty, asking how much the car was. Betty says they are making payments on the car of $450/month for the next 4 years. Wilma writes Betty a check for $450, and sends her one every month for the next 8 months. Eight months after the judgment was rendered, BamBam is discovered to have more damage to his head than originally thought. He loses sight in his other eye and now is totally blind. BamBam's parents sue Fred and Wilma again for personal injury, but the case is thrown out as the first case already decided the injury case. Fred refuses to pay more to BamBam, and he takes the checkbook away from Wilma when he discovers she's been making BamBam's car payments. The two families stop speaking to each other. BamBam throws away his now useless eyepatch and becomes despondent. His dreams of being a drag racer seem to be over. BamBam's attorney refiles the case, this time on grounds that Wilma's statement to Betty was a binding contract that requires that Wilma pay any remaining damages to BamBam, for the remainder of his life. Was Wilma's statement a binding contract? Using the law of contracts, explain why or why not. Does BamBam's age have anything to do with your answer? Can Fred be bound by the potential contract Wilma may have entered into? Use the law of agency to explain your answer to that question. Did Wilma's purchase of the eyepatch give BamBam a greater leg to stand on in court? What about the car payments she made? Explain fully your answer to these questions.

Student Answer:

In my opinion yes this was a valid contract. Wilma made an offer to Betty, an agreement was met, and Betty agreed. Both parties were also competent. This was an implied contract so when Wilma said they would cover everything the insurance does not to help BamBam live a normal life left this contract open ended. Absolutely Fred is held to this contract. Wilma is the competent wife and should have all the legal rights to establish the contract that Fred would have to honor. Fred also did not argue in any way to say this was unreasonable. I believe in the case of marriage the wife has actual authority. I think the eye patch and car payments does help BamBam's case. Wilma was continuing to pay as she agreed to live up to the obligations she laid out. However I do not see BamBam winning anything further when all is said and done. The first settlement should be the end of litigation. Wilma was just sending more money to be nice. Unless the initial settlement specifically spelled out that Wilma and Fred needed to continue those payments they are not legally responsible for them.
answer. Was there consideration for Wilma's statements, or were these gifts? Betty did not accept the offer, for example. Students should also discuss the judgment being entered and the 8 months of payments for the car that Wilma undertook (Is this detrimental reliance? Probably not, but students should discuss.) The eye patch is definitely a gift and should not bind Wilma and Fred. BamBam being 16 doesn't impact anything unless he had entered into a cortract with Fred and Wilma. A discussion of the statute of frauds and other contractual bases would also be useful.

Instructor Explanation: Students should discuss contract offer, acceptance, and especially consideration in their

Points Received: Comments:

40 of 40 Robert: You effectively considered the contractual formation and enforceability issues raised by this scenario.

5. Question :

TCO I. Marianne Jennings wrote an article, "Why an International Code of Ethics would be good," which was assigned to be read at the beginning of the course. As you have worked throughout this session, you should have considered this article and how it may or may not have impacted different situations in the world economic/business/legal/political environments. The essay you will write on the next question should show that you have read Marianne's article and can apply her theories and thoughts from that article to the scenario provided. Feel free to rely on the information you know about the situations (if real) or analogize to another one, if you wish. Include in your answer at least two specific concepts from Marianne's article, and apply those concepts to your reasoning in your answer. You will be graded on your knowledge of the article as well as the application of ethical theories to international situations. An oil travesty has occurred. In the Gulf Coast, British Petroleum's deep-sea oil well has had a major malfunction and has exploded. The explosion killed many oil workers. The oil well began spewing oil into the Gulf, and now the entire southern portion of the United States coastal areas has been destroyed. BP initially came out with advertisements using the CEO of the company apologizing and promising to make this right for the citizens of the United States. Then, the CEO was removed by BP from working the disaster. The crisis continues. Based on the "timing" of the crisis and resolutions that have occurred at the time of your exam, answer the following question using the most relevant facts you know. Using Marianne Jenning's article, would an international code of ethics have assisted with the handling of this crisis? Would it have helped BP avoid this crisis? Do you see this as an ethical issue? Support your answer with concepts from her article, as well as other ethical reasons.

Student Answer:

Marianne lays out four steps to implementing an international ethical code. Train managers and the relationship between capitalism and bribery, develop a code of universal values, conduct evaluations prior to implementing operations, and use internal auditors. I am not really sure that an international code of ethics would help in this case. Yes it would be nice to hold everyone accountable for their business decisions, but how would you enforce it. A universal code would have probably kept BP from firing the CEO that promised to make everything right, but maybe he was fired for a good reason. Maybe he was the one promoting unsafe construction practices. The universal code would help if it was implemented far enough back. This would lead CEOs to think about how decisions affect others in the long run. This could have lead to avoiding this crisis if everyone followed it. I do not think there is an ethical issue here with the evidence I have seen. There is nothing that says that BP was doing anything wrong to cause the accident. There is also nothing saying that BP was not taking every possible safeguard to protect the environment. I have to believe that BP is considering every possible ethical dilemma until I see evidence otherwise. I did not see any bribery, greasing of palms, or anything of the sort. I know for a fact that BP has US representatives and advisors to help make sure nothing goes wrong. There are multiple inspections yearly to ensure they follow all safety and environmental rules. Maybe we should hold the inspectors to a code of ethics. From what I understand they failed to ensure everything was in working order.
international code of ethics (as opposed to doing as the Romans would do" when

Instructor Explanation: The student answer should address some of the basis of Ms. Jennings article that an

conducting business in a foreign country) would be good for business. Some of the concepts she discusses in her article include the following: an ethical basis for international business would establish trust (including market trust); fundamental values help markets thrive; robust markets raise the standards of living for the citizens of a given country; trust encourages the free flow of labor and goods among countries; businesspersons and corporations do not want to do business with corrupt countries (and hence the world economic health is negatively impacted); and an international code of ethics for business would provide a framework by which persons could act both morally and justly (fairly, with integrity, etc.). A full credit student answer to this question would also discuss one or more of the ethical resolution models studied and/or the social responsibility of corporations (p. 47 49).

Points Received: Comments:

40 of 40 Robert: The BP oil spill was a real tragedy, and you considered the ethical issues raised by the situation.
TCO A. Use the fact pattern you received in the above Marianne Jennings "International Code of Ethics" question to answer this question. Analyze and propose a solution to the problem you received above using the Laura Nash method. Show the steps, apply the facts, and provide a proposed solution you would suggest.

6. Question :

Student Answer:

According to the Laura Nash method you must accurately define the problem. The problem is there was a massive oil spill that needs to be cleaned up. The problem is the same no matter which side of the fence you are on. BP must determine how the accident occurred and fix it. BP must then figure out who their loyalties go to first. The stakeholders or the victims. I would bring the original CEO back in and get things back on track. They can correct the failed part to stop the leak. They will then need to get it in their mind that they are responsible to the victims first and foremost. This will help them save some face. I would meet with the victims and US government to decide what damages needed to be paid and what help I could get. BP must realize that they have to get this cleaned up as fast as possible to get the bad image out of everyone's mind. The key in my mind to the Nash approach is whether you can live with the decisions that you are making. I would also start some company promotions of environmental and personal safety. I would make sure that everyone believed that I wanted to make sure this never happened again. I would also make sure that I cleaned up everything as much as possible. I would sacrifice profit in the short term to restore the company's reputation. This would ensure I could renew my drilling rights for the future. Instructor Explanation: Page 42 of the textbook. Students must show the steps, apply the facts, and provide a proposed solution for full credit. Points Received: 40 of 40 Comments: Robert: Good look at the Nash ethical model.