Introduction to Business Law and Ethics

Introduction to Business natural law and morality Susana Silvestri Grand Canyon University BUS-340 October 17, 2010 Introduction to Business Law and Ethics Statutory interpretation was critical to the Supreme philander of Colorados resolution of a 2007 effort, Pringle v. Valdez. Using an online source or sources, locate the Pringle close. thence do the following 1. subscribe referee Benders volume opinion and prep atomic number 18 a case brief of the sort describe in this chapters appendix on Reading and Briefing Cases. 2. Read the dissenting opinion authored by Justice Coats. Then prep atomic number 18 a whiz-page es enounce that (a) summarizes the principal arguments made in the dissenting opinion (b) sets onwards your view on which analysisthe majority opinions or the dissenting opinionsis better and (c) Provide the reasons for the view you shit expressed in (b). 1. Case Briefing Pringle v. Valdez 06SC92 (2007) Court Supreme Court Class Civil Facts Pringle lost control o f the vehicle while pickings Valdez home.Valdez was not wearing his seatbelt causing a series of injuries when ejected of the vehicle. Valdez requested cook up for impairment and disfigurement, and noneconomic losses. The argument lays on the Noneconomic losses which might fall downstairs the distract in the neck and suffering under the seatbelt defense. Issue The wording used involving pain and suffering and noneconomic damages referred to in the Seatbelt defense provision Holding honour of $400,000 for physical disfigurement and impairment. RuleThe wording in dispute pain and suffering and noneconomic damages willing be further evaluated. Analysis suffer and Suffering and noneconomic damages are many times considered to be correspondent and by studying the demand of the case it deal be govern as been the same but using a different name. proof Non-award of $100,000 for noneconomic damages. Award of $400,00 for physical impairment and disfigurement. Pringle v. Valdez is o bviously at source a case of Majority Opinion which in an appeal court was glum into a dissenting opinion.Part of the case held while the other was discussed, studied and pose for an accurate ruling, in order to explain and grant a decisiveness by the jurors and the judge according with the Statutory Interpretation of the case. Mallor, J. P. , Barnes, A. J. , Bowers, T. & Langvardt, A. W. , 2010, p. 24 http//www. courts. state. co. us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2006/06SC92. pdf Jerrie color in worked at a Tyson Foods plant where she was exposed to comments, gestures, and physical tactual sensation that, she alleged, constituted versed harassment.Tyson disputed the allegation, arguing that the behavior was not unwelcome, that the complained round conduct was not ground on sex, that the conduct did not bushel a term, condition, or privilege of employment, and that proper remedial action was taken in response to any complaint by Gray of sexual harassment. During the run i n federal court, a witness for Gray repeatedly volunteered inadmissible testimony that the judge had to tell the jury to disregard. At one halt, upon an objection from the defendants counsel, the witness asked, May I say something here? The judge told her she could not. Finally, after the jury left the courtroom, the witness had an angry outburst that continued into the hallway, in view of some of the jurors. The jury awarded Gray $185,000 in compensatory and $800,000 in punitive damages. Tyson believed that it should not have been liable, that the awards of damages were profligate and unsupported by evidence, and that the inadmissible evidence and improper conduct had cloud the minutes. What courses of action may Tyson pursue? Tyson Foods entered a trial in a Federal Court after a sexual harassment case was filed.Tyson Foods follow protocol and tried to solve the issue ahead of time. During trial the witness continued to assimilate comments that were dismissed which were then awarded based on comments made after the hearing was completed and the ships company was liable to pay almost $1,000,000. 00. Based on Tyson Foods believes they should appeal the Federal Court decision due to the incident that the claims were unsupported by evidence. Also they should add the fact that the inadmissible evidence and improper conduct of the witness had tainted the proceedings issuing an unfair ruling.You own a consulting trusty with 32 employees and yearbook billings of $29,000,000. One of your clients, whom you bill an average of $1,200,000 annually, has asked you to hire her grandson. You know that the grandson has been recently graduate from a top-20 business school. He is 31 years old, has a hearty academic record, and possesses the personal and professional skills to be successful as a consultant. You also know, however, that he is a convalescent cocaine addict, having struggled with the addiction for louvre years prior to his at ten-spotding business scho ol.Your firm has a unbending no-drugs insurance, which you usually interpret to exclude those who previously abused drugs. Using rightness theory, justify a decision to exempt the grandson from your firms no-drugs policy. Could you make the same decision as a profit maximizer? This decision can doors to law suits for discrimination to previous applicants which applications had been denied. On the other hand, the company has the happen to loose a good client. As owner, I will first make sure to read, examine and adjust any clause connect to hiring and the no-drugs policy. The words recovering and recovered are different.Hiring someone in the recovering stage, the company is breaking the no-drugs policy. If adjustments are made to the policy to accommodate applicants from this point on that are recovering or recovered drug addicts, it will be to implementing random drug tests weekly. This will be costly to the firm but will guarantee the no-drug policy to remain unbroken the pote ncy new employee must agree to this practice and the consequences based on the results. Justice Theory is based on the protection of those who are least advantaged in confederacy (Mallor, J. P. , Barnes, A. J. , Bowers, T. & Langvardt, A. W. , 2010, p. 5), making castrates and adjusting the policy will fall under this category. heavy(a) a second chance to those in disadvantage in society. Maximizer requires a decision maker to maximize a businesss long haul earnings within the limits of the law(Mallor, J. P. , Barnes, A. J. , Bowers, T. & Langvardt, A. W. , 2010, p. 95) if this potential employee is capable to obey the policy and continue a successful recovery it could mean a win-win situation. You are assigned by your employer, Jay-Mart Corporation, an international discount retailer, to supervise the construction of ten new retail superstores in Shanghai, China.All construction is being done by a Chinese-owned contractor in compliance with Ja to those iny-Marts construction st andards. by and by an earthquake in China kills over 70,000 people, Chinas legislative body passes a statute requiring new buildings to have a greater talent to withstand a large earthquake. The Chinese contractor has approached you and suggested that the new Chinese construction standards are unnecessarily high, that Jay-Marts construction standards are equal to protect against any earthquake likely to exceed, and that the cost of complying with the new Chinese construction standards will increase construction costs 20 percent.What do you do if you believe that ethical behavior requires you to maximize Jay-Marts profits? A profit maximization results in ethical conduct because it requires societys members to act within the constraints of the law. A profit maximizer, therefore, acts ethically by complying with societys mores as expressed in its laws. (2) (Mallor, J. P. , Barnes, A. J. , Bowers, T. & Langvardt, A. W. , 2010, p. 7) With this in intelligence the supervisor of th e construction site, the decision has to be made were the companys profit could be reduced to 20% due to the increase of the construction. This change should be shown to the companys finance department. The profits at pithy term could be affected by going with the construction based on the laws standards. By actually continue with the original plan the company could be liable to law suits if another natural disaster occur and the construction standards were not followed, this could affect the long run profits of the company.There are many ways to cut expenses one that could be proposed can be to build 8 stores instead of the 10 originally proposed, this will wrapped the 20% increase to maintain the project under the stipulated budget without poignant the short term profit.References Mallor, J. P. , Barnes, A. J. , Bowers, T. & Langvardt, A. W. (2010). Business Law (14th ed. ). Boston, MA McGraw-Hill Irwin http//www. courts. state. co. us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2006/06SC92. pdf (Retrieved October 12, 2010)