BUSINESS LAW
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliations
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
Personal jurisdiction refers to the courthouse power over the parties that are involved in a dispute. In the event that the court wants to exercise power over party, based on the constitution, constitution, the disputing parties must be given an opportunity to have contacts with the forum in the courthouse. Personal jurisdiction is pertinent to this case in the court in the State of Florida since the contract signed with Novelity states that Ian, Matt and Chris cannot be brought in front of the judge.
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.
ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) is used to explain a technique of resolving disagreement outside of the courthouse. Normally, ADR involves conciliation, early neutral evaluation, arbitration, negotiation and mediation (Dodd, 2008). Mr. Margolin has the advantage of requesting for large sum of money for compensation because of the damages that the chemical caused to his face. However, the shortcoming is that the company stands to lose its client base significantly.
Applying what you have learned about ADR, which type would each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) prefer and why?
It is in the best interest of Funny Face to negotiate the terms with Mr. Margolin. All being well, the negotiation will prevent the case from reaching the ears of the media and also give Funny Face the opportunity to correct their mistake of including PYY chemical in their product since it was not FDA approved.
Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss whether or not corporations and/or corporate officers may be held liable for criminal acts.
Based on my opinion, the corporate officers stand a chance to be held responsible for criminal acts. In due course, based on criminal law act, they corporate officers will be held accountable because they have the power to approve both the strategies for the business and the final products (August, 2012). Therefore, they are supposed to answer for the accusations and the decisions based on the results.
Identify, per the classification of crimes in the text, any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or Novelty Now.
Based on the classification of crimes, both Funny Face and Novelity committed a criminal act through the misuse of the guidelines and going ahead to manufacture products containing ingredients that have not been approved by the FDA. This was criminal and unacceptable by all means possible.
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.
Based on the criminal law act, going ahead to use a chemical ingredient which has not been approved by the FDA is considered an act that is punishable by the court of law. According to the legal dictionary fraud is a false representation of a matter of fact which is intended to deceive others McMunigal, K. C. (2008). Therefore, Matt, Ian and Chris can be held responsible because they knew PYR was not approved by the FDA but they went ahead to include it in the product. On the other hand, Novelity is considered liable for the crime despite the fact that they did not commit the crime to benefit themselves. Also, the executives of both Novelity and Funny Face will be held accountable for the crime because they were responsible for ensuring that PYR was FDA approved.
Apply at least three guidelines of ethical decision-making to evaluate ethical issues within the case study.
The three guidelines of ethical decision making used to evaluate the ethical issues in this case are Who, Purpose and How (WHP). In this case, Novelity goes ahead to use a chemical component with the potential of affecting everyone in the company from the consumers, managers, employees and the executives. The main purpose behind this act was to increase the company’s profit margin. On H (How), an ethical business decision is made. From the case, it is evident that neither Funny Face nor Novelity used any honesty or personal value which would have helped them make the tight decision (McMunigal, K. C. (2008). The fact that they only wanted to make more profits jeopardized the credibility and integrity of both companies. While taking this action, they failed to consider how the consumers would be affected by their products but instead put forward their interest of making more money. This was an act of lack of public disclosure, trust, poor business ethics and also an act of a very poor decision making in a business setting first from Funny Face and also by Novelity.
References
Dodd Jr, E. M. (2008). Jurisdiction in Personal Actions. Ill. L. Rev., 23, 427.
McMunigal, K. C. (2008). Desert, Utility, and Minimum Contacts: Toward a Mixed Theory of Personal Jurisdiction. The Yale Law Journal, 108(1), 189-235.
August, R., Mayer, D., & Bixby, M. B. (2012). International business law. Pearson Education, Limited.
d_bang
BusineslawCase1.docx
0
