Docstoc

Bus Law Essay Questions

Document Sample
Bus Law Essay Questions Powered By Docstoc
					Amanda Taylor Business Law Test 1 Essay Questions A) Yes, New York State has the standing to exercise personal jurisdiction over both Drug Co. and Phasbuc Inc. In regards to Drug Co., personal jurisdiction is exercised automatically since its business is operated in the state where the action is being brought. Phasbuc Inc. is also subject to the jurisdictional authority of New York. This relationship is formed through long arm statutes that enable state courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over an out of state defendant as long as “minimum contacts can be demonstrated”. This requirement is met by Phasbuc having commercially advertised their product in New York and also through the product being placed in the “stream of commerce” within that state with intents and purposes to sell. Also there is a valid connection between the cause of action and the contacts made by the corporation. B) If lawsuit was filed in the federal court system , the case would be filed under the original jurisdiction of the U. S District Courts, because the case meets the elements required of diversity jurisdiction. C) Phasbuc should move for a special appearance, the sole purpose of being to challenge the courts authority of personal jurisdiction. D) Phasbuc should file a pretrial motion to dismiss due to the lack of the presence of personal jurisdiction. E) The first appeal would be filed in New York Supreme Court Appellate Division which is the intermediate court of appeals in New York. If the lawsuit was filed in a district court than the first appeal should be filed U.S Court of Appeals Second Circuit. F) Elmer’s attorney could make discovery requests including interrogatories (questions specifically designed to obtain accurate info), requests for admissions (asking for the truth in certain issues), and request for documents and examinations relevant to the prior history of kidney problems evident in relation to the use of Fat Be Gone.

Part 2 A) If a product is preferred, wanted, or markedly pursued by a certain group of members of a society more than another group, regardless of the product, it is a business’s right, purpose, and obligation to supply that product and maximize its availability and accessibility to that group. Just because in this particular instance the product is an alcoholic beverage used by members of a community that is less economically sound than some, doesn’t change the fact that there is a demand for the product, and if this

company doesn’t capitalize on the opportunity to expand and maximize its profits, then another company will. I don’t think there are any ethical issues here. People want what they want, a company putting up a billboard displaying it is not going to cause a onslaught of alcoholism, but merely steer people that already drink to buy a different product to meet their needs. B) One should take into account whether the area in question is going to somehow be negatively impacted by such advertising. C) Utilitarianism could be applied here to support advertising such as this because if you apply the three elements of the theory to the given situation, the outcome is positive. By first determining the individuals to be affected by the action, then discerning the negative and positive effects on these individuals, and third choosing a course of action that will produce maximum societal utility, the advertising of the product in economic depressed areas can be justified and perceived as acting within ethical confines.