Business Law & Ethics

    1. Computers, Inc. has an employee who has special accommodation needs in order to perform her job. These special accommodations would cost Computers $10,000 to implement. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides that an employer is required to make “reasonable accommodation” for employees with a disability, but does not define “reasonable accommodation”. Assume that the size of an employer-company determines the maximum amount of money that would be reasonable for an employer to spend to make “reasonable accommodation” for a disabled employee. Under the principle of stare decisis, determine which of the following would apply to Computers.A. If a similar-sized employer-company had been required by a court to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation, Computers likely would be required to spend the $10,000.B. If a similar-sized employer-company had not been required to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation, this would ensure that Computers would not have to spend the $10,000.C. Whether a similar-sized employer-company had been required by a court to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation would be irrelevant for Computers because it occurred in the past.D. Whether a similar-sized employer-company had been required by a court to spend $15,000 in the past for reasonable accommodation would be irrelevant for Computers; courts make all decisions on a case-by- case basis.2. A city ordinance permits street vendors to operate only within certain commercial areas of the city to prevent dangerous traffic congestion. The street vendors sued the city claiming that the restrictions were a violation of their equal protection rights as other businesses are not restricted to operating only in certain commercial areas within the city.How would you classify the ordinance?A. Constitutional; because the city has a justifiable purpose in enacting the ordinance, it does not violate the equal protection rights of street vendors.B. Constitutional; because street vendors are private businesses, they are not protected by the equal protection clause of the 14 th Amendment.C. Unconstitutional; the ordinance unduly discriminates against street vendors as compared to other business owners and thus, violates the vendors’ equal protection rights.D. Unconstitutional; privately owned vendors, unlike public businesses, have a constitutional right to conduct business in any commercial area of their choice.3.   Assume that Virginia enacted a law prohibiting, until further notice, all grocery stores in Virginia from selling all powdered spices manufactured in, or shipped from, Maryland.  This law was enacted because it was discovered that the spices recently manufactured in Maryland were infected with bacteria. Determine the constitutionality of the Virginia statute. The statute is:A. Unconstitutional; it violates grocery store owners’ substantive and procedural due process rights under the 5 th and 14 th Amendments because they are private businesses.B. Unconstitutional; the statute imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.C. Constitutional; it is a valid exercise of Virginia’s police power.D. Constitutional; the statute imposes an undue burden on intrastate and interstate commerce.4.  Jack and Jo, residents of Colorado, were hiking in Nevada when a dog being walked by its owner, Will, bit Jo causing injury. Jack wants Jo to sue Will, a resident of Montana, but Jo does not want to incur the cost of a lawsuit. Identify which of the following best illustrates Jack’s legal right to sue in this case.A. Jack has standing to sue Will, but only in federal court since Colorado, Nevada and Montana state courts all meet the minimum contacts test for jurisdiction.B. Jack has standing to sue Will, but only in Nevada because neither Colorado nor Montana meets the minimum contacts test for jurisdiction.C. Jack does not have standing to sue Will in Nevada, Colorado or Montana.D. Jack does not have standing to sue Will because he is not a resident of Nevada where the injury to Jo occurred.5.  Mac and Rhamad signed a business contract with a clause that provides that if a dispute arises they must submit to binding arbitration to resolve the dispute. After they had been doing business together for a year, a dispute arose under the terms of the contract. Rather than submit to arbitration, Mac filed a lawsuit against Rhamad. Most likely the court will:A. Hear the lawsuit because Mac cannot be compelled to submit to arbitration; he is constitutionally entitled to a jury trial if he requests a trial.B. Conduct a bench trial, then order a remedy without compelling Mac to submit to arbitration or to a jury trial.C. Compel Mac to submit to arbitration to resolve the dispute.D. Hear the lawsuit in a trial, then compel Mac to submit to arbitration, if Mac is not satisfied with the trial decision.6.  Roxy, while driving through Wyoming to her home in Montana, accidentally lost control of her car and drove it through a window into a store owned by Colt. Colt sued Roxy in a Wyoming court for damages to his store.Will the Wyoming court likely be able to exercise jurisdiction over Roxy?A. no, because Wyoming has no in personam (personal) jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot exercise its long arm statute only in cases involving automobile accidents.B. no, because Wyoming has no in personam jurisdiction over Roxy, and cannot justify minimum contacts in this case.C. yes, Wyoming can exercise in personam jurisdiction in this case because any state court has personal jurisdiction in every diversity of citizenship case.D. yes, because Wyoming can assert in personam jurisdiction over Roxy under the minimum contacts test.7.  Buildings-R- Us (BRU), a construction company, was hired to blast a hole for a new building’s foundation. A box of dynamite, sitting on the construction site, ready for use in the blasting, spontaneously exploded and injured 2 passing motorists. If the motorists sue BRU, identify the likely result. BRU will be held:A. Not liable under strict liability because BRU had not yet actually ignited the dynamite.B. Not liable under any legal doctrine as it was not foreseeable that the dynamite would spontaneously explode.C. Liable under negligence because dynamite is abnormally dangerous.D. Liable under strict liability because dynamite is abnormally dangerous. 8.   Kim carelessly parked her car on a steep hill, leaving the car in neutral and failing to engage the parking brake. The car rolled down the hill and knocked down an electric line. The sparks from the broken line ignited a grass fire that spread to a barn several yards away. The roof of the burning barn fell and damaged a passing car owned by Ray. Can Ray likely recover damages from Kim under ordinary negligence?A. Yes, because Kim was negligent in parking the car.B. Yes, because Kim set in motion the chain of events that resulted in damage to Ray’s car, even though Kim did not directly hit the car.C. No, because of the unforeseeable intervening force doctrine.D. No, regardless of Kim’s negligence in parking the car as her negligence was not the proximate cause of the accident and harm that occurred to Ray.9 . Lee sued Don in negligence. Li’s losses total $100,000. Under a contributory negligence system, if Lee is found to be contributorily negligent for her own injuries, what damages will Lee like recover from Don?A. None.B. $100,000.C. $100,000 minus the percentage of fault (e.g., 20%, 60%, etc.) for which Lee was responsible.D. $100,000 minus the percentage of fault for which Lee was responsible, so long as Lee was not more than 50% responsible for the injuries.10. Mediation might be more reasonable and appropriate than a trial in which of the following situations?A. A lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of a new state statute.B. A dispute between neighbors over a property boundary.C. An alleged theft of patio furniture from the patio of a house.D. None of the above are appropriate for mediation.Answer questions 11-12 regarding the following scenario:Scenario: Jones, a resident of Arizona, booked reservations for a vacation at Windell Hotels, Inc. in Cabo Mar, Mexico. Windell Hotels is an international hotel chain incorporated in Delaware with hotels in North and South America; Windell Hotels has no hotels in Arizona but does advertise and book reservations for all its hotels over the internet.While a guest in the hotel in Cabo Mar, Jones was walking across the hotel lobby, and slipped and fell on the wet marble floor that had been just washed by the maintenance staff. The staff had placed a “wet floor” sign on the lobby floor on the side wall of the lobby.Jones was taken to the nearest Mexican hospital where surgery was necessary to place a pin in his broken leg. Anxious to return home and see his regular doctor, Jones flew out of Mexico shortly after the surgery. He required two plane seats and an ambulance to meet him at various airports. His health insurance would not cover his hospital stay in Mexico as it was located outside the U.S. When back in Arizona, Jones was unable to work for 8 weeks and required another surgery to remove the pin. He also required several weeks of physical therapy. 11. Jones wants to sue Windell Hotels, Inc. in federal court for $450,000 to recover all his medical expenses in Mexico and the US; for $50,000 for the cost of the plane trip from Mexico to Arizona, the 2 plane seats and ambulance costs in various airports; $10,000 for 8 weeks of lost wages; and $50,000 for pain and suffering resulting from the injury.   Can he sue in federal court?A. Yes, because Federal Court always has jurisdiction over citizens of different states.B. No, because Federal Court does not have jurisdiction in cases that do not involve federal laws.C. Yes, because the Federal Court may have jurisdiction over parties who are citizens of different states and the lawsuit involves damages greater than $75,000.D. No, because the Federal Court has no jurisdiction over an accident that occurred in Mexico. 12.   It would be easier for Jones to bring the lawsuit in Arizona state court, but he wonders if the court can get Windell Hotels to come to Arizona. Can the Arizona state court impose jurisdiction over Windell Hotels to bring the company to court in Arizona?A. No, because the subject of the lawsuit took place in a foreign country.B. No, because the corporation does not have sufficient minimum contact with Arizona to allow the Arizona court to use the long arm statute to establish jurisdiction in Arizona.C. Yes, because the Jones is a resident of Arizona and he is the plaintiff in the lawsuit.D. Yes, because Windell Hotels has sufficient minimum contact with Arizona the state to justify the court’s use of the long arm statute.13. Ram was walking down the sidewalk by a construction project site in a downtown area. The project was owned and operated by Modern Construction, Inc. and was surrounded by orange plastic fencing typically used for construction projects. Ram stopped to watch a metal beam being lifted by a crane on the construction site. As the beam swung through the air, Ram thought it was going to fall and jumped forward quickly off the sidewalk and into the construction project property, falling into and smashing the orange plastic fencing. As Ram landed inside the construction project, the beam fell near Ram. The beam did not hit Ram but some rocks were thrown onto Ram as the beam fell, cutting his arm badly so that it required 35 stitches. If Ram sues Model Construction for negligence, the likely result will be that Ram will:a) Lose, because he assumed the risk as a trespasser on the construction site and trespassers can never recover damages.b) Lose, because pedestrians are always contributorily negligent in such cases involving trespassing.c) Win, because it is always foreseeable that a beam could fall on a rescuing pedestrian.d) Win, if the beam fell because of Model Construction’s negligence.14) Which of the following is not a form of ADR: a) Mediationb) Min-Trialc) Triald) Negotiation 15) Interrogatories and Depositions are part of :a) Complaintb) Discoveryc) Triald) Cross-Claim16) A patent protects aa) An inventionb) The author of a bookc) The Design of a bottled) A musical composition 17) A copyright is issued when: a) It is registered with the Federal US Copyright Officeb) It is registered with the State in which the work is writtenc) As soon as it is in tangible formd) None of the above 18) Shortly after the store opened, Winston walked into Ken’s Grocery and slipped and fell in standing water just inside the entrance.  Winston broke his leg in the fall.  There had been a rainstorm the previous night and Ken’s claimed the water seeped into the store during the storm.  Winston sued Ken’s for negligence to recover damages for his injury.  Which of the following is the truest statement regarding the likely outcome of the lawsuit?a) Winston will lose as the standing water in Ken’s was an Act of God and no fault of Ken’s.b) Winston will lose as he assumed the risk by entering the store as it was foreseeable there could be water in the store entrance after a rainstorm.c) Winston will not recover damages because he was contributorily negligent for entering the store because the standing water would have been visible to Winston. r.d) All of the above are true statements.e) None of the above are true statements.19   Refer to the scenario in #18 above and assume the same facts occurred except add the fact that Ken’s Grocery posted a sign just inside the store warning about the standing water.  If Winston sues Ken’s for negligence to recover damages for his injury, which of the following is the truest statement regarding the likely outcome of the lawsuit, with this additional fact?a) Winston will lose as he assumed the risk by continuing to enter Ken’s after seeing the warning sign inside the store.b) Winston will lose; by posting the warning sign Ken’s did not breach its duty of care to Winston.c) Winston will lose as the water was a superseding intervening event beyond the control of Ken’s. d) All of the above are true statements.20) Crimes are classified as:a) Feloniesb) Misdemeanorsc) Violationsd) All of the Above 21) I decide that I no longer wish to share the profits of my business with my partner. I sit and plan to kill him. The most serious crime I can be charged with is: a) Murderb) Manslaughterc) Batteryd) Assault 22) The parties to a criminal prosecution include: a) The person who is charged with committing the crimeb) A witness to the crimec) The person who is injured by the criminal actd) The federal, state, or local government bringing the actione) A&Bf) A&Dg) A, B, & C 23) If I am protesting the actions of the government and as part of my protest, I burn the American Flag, this is an example of: a) Treasonb) Commercial Free Speechc) Political Free Speechd) Unprotected Speech 24) Fraud must contain the following elements: a) A material fact was misrepresentedb) There was actual damages sufferedc) The person making the misrepresentation knew it to be falsed) A & C onlye) B & C onlyf) A, B, & C 25) The elements required to be proven in order to win a negligence case are: a) Duty, breach of duty, actual & proximate cause, and harmb) Duty ,intent to cause harm, and injuryc) Duty, injury, and comparative negligenced) Duty, harm, breach of duty, and assumption of the risk   ESSAY ONE: Case Scenario: Foods, Inc., a large retail super market store that sells a variety of products, has had an eventful week.Part I:There have been heavy rains in the area all week. On Wednesday, a ceiling tile that had become wet from a leaking roof in Foods due to the heavy rain storms earlier in the week fell and hit some bags of peanuts causing the nuts to spill across the store aisle. Edie, a customer, entered the aisle, slipped on the peanuts and broke her leg and arm. The manager of Foods was unaware of the leaking roof and the wet ceiling tile and unaware that the peanuts had spilled onto the store floor.Part II.On Friday, a small group of political protestors carrying signs and quietly chanting were marching back and forth the full length of the public sidewalk in front of Foods. Foods encompasses the entire block by the public sidewalk with entry and exit doors located directly in the center of the store building, and with privately owned parking in the back of the store. Sometimes the protestors were at either of the two ends of the sidewalk in front of Foods, and thus, not directly in front of the entry/exit door doors to Foods. The protestors did not walk on or enter the private parking lot owned by Foods; the protestors did not stop and congregate in front of the store or its entry/exit doors at any time. The management of Foods believed that the protestors were impeding the ingress and egress of customers into Foods end therefore interfering with business. Foods called the police to have the protestors removed.The police did not arrest the protestors but did require them to stop marching and move away from Foods.AssignmentPart I:A. How likely is Edie to win a negligence case against Foods for her injuries resulting from slipping on the peanuts? Why?B. Consider whether any, legal defense(s) could be raised by Foods. Are any legal defenses likely to be successful in negating liability for Foods? Why or why not? (Tip: Stick only to the facts in the case, do not assume any facts not given.) Part II:A. The protestors want to sue the City for violation of their constitutional rights. Specifically, what legal claim could the protestors sue for and why?B. Could the protestors be convicted of trespassing against Foods? Why or why not?     ESSAY 2 Leon, a bank vice president, joined Fitness Center, Inc. (FC). He signed a contract for the membership. The contract stated, among other things, an exculpatory clause that FC.“shall not be liable for any claim, demand, cause of action of any kind whatsoever for, or on account of death, personal injury, property damage or loss of any kind resulting from or related to Member’s use of facilities or participation in any sport, exercise or activity within the club premises…”While working out at FC, Leon sustained back injuries when a treadmill on which he was walking suddenly collapsed at FC. Leon sued FC for his injuries.Discuss:a. Is the exculpatory clause in the contract valid or invalid in Leon’s case and why?b. Possible product liability claim(s) for which Leon could sue FC and why product liability claims might be applicable to this casec. Possible ordinary (non-product liability) negligence claim for which Leon could sue FC and why a negligence claim might be applicable to this cased. The likely outcome if Leon sues FC under product liabilitye. The likely outcome if Leon sues FC under ordinary negligence