Law and Ethics

¶ … trade libel is fair to business owners. Argue both sides of the issue. From the general public's viewpoint, the definition of trade liable is accurate. This is because the store detained someone they accused of shoplifting. To determine where the stolen item was hiding; they effectively conducted a strip search by revealing private areas. At one point, Cockrell (the plaintiff) had to remove a bandage that was use to cover a recent scar from a liver transplant. He asked security not to remove it and they insisted.

This is a clear violation, as the security at Wal Mart has no right to conduct these activities. Instead, they should have detained the person and contacted the police. (Statsky, 2011) Wal Mart will argue that shoplifting is a major problem and they were following proper procedures. This occurs by bring the subject into an isolated area and checking them. After they have been cleared, is when the person is free to go. In this case, they will argue that the shopkeeper's privilege gives them the right to conduct these activities.

Under the law, merchants can detain someone for a reasonable period to determine if any wrongdoing was committed. This is because they believed that a crime was occurring which could have resulted in substantial losses to the company. If they did not act quickly, there is a possibility that the perpetrator may have escaped. To prevent this, the security will take aggressive actions to protect the company.

Wal Mart is citing how this approach has been utilized across the country and no one is complaining about their practices (other than Cockrell). In this aspect, Wal Mart will argue that they did nothing wrong by checking areas inside his clothing where he could hide stolen items. This is standard operating procedure for dealing with shoplifters using the shopkeeper's privilege.

(Statsky, 2011) Brief Paper 2 Assume your readers know the facts of the case and are only seeking your opinions on whether or not the definition of trade libel is fair to business owners. Argue both sides of the issue. The case involving Lucky Cheng's v. Zaga Survey, Inc. is showing how there are two different interpretations of liable. In this case, the Zaga Survey rated Lucky Cheng's as a good restaurant with an outstanding atmosphere.

Commenting about it they said, "God known you don't go for the food at this East Village Asian Eclectic." Lucky Cheng's sued the company claiming that this is a libelous statement. (Cheesman, 2009) The Zaga Survey argued that this is an expression of their opinion and was not intended to damage Lucky Cheng's in any way. They will cite how these views are routinely expressed at different points in time to readers. Second, they claim how under the law there is no clear evidence they engaged in these activities.

This is because the plaintiff has to prove that several events occurred to successfully make a claim. The most notable include: 1) making untrue statements, 2) publishing untrue statements to third parties, 3) knowing the statement was not true and 4) the statement was made with the intention of inflicting harm. These standards were never proven, as the Zaga Survey is simply expressing opinions about their experiences. This is something which occurs regularly as a part of their business in publishing restaurant reviews.

(Cheesman, 2009) Lucky Cheng's will argue that the Zaga Survey did this intentionally. This is because they knew that the organization could hide behind these standards and make disparaging claims about the firm. These issues are troubling, as some customers will be turned off by this statement and stop visiting the restaurant. To prevent this, they are asking the courts to re interpret the law based upon the statements that were made.

They feel that this will clearly demonstrate that Zaga intentionally wanted to harm the organization and then use the cumbersome standards of liable to hide behind. (Cheesman, 2009) Brief Paper 3 Assume your readers know the facts of each scenario and are seeking your opinions on whether or not each of the four subjects affect business in the United States. If so, provide the worst and best case scenarios. The four subjects will have varying impacts on business.

In the case of publicly hanging the Ten Commandments, there will be little adverse effects. This is because there is a separation between church and state. The fact that a county government is endorsing this could be construed, as them supporting Christianity over other religions. In this case, there are no best or worst case scenarios. (Steinberg, 2009) (Cheesman, 2009) Liability laws protect consumers against receiving products which are inferior in quality and unsafe.

In this case, the fact that the Squirt bottle was filled with a dead mouse is indicating that the company knowingly overlooked proper safety producers. This made the plaintiff sick, he was forced to take time off of work and put to considerable expense seeking out medical treatment. In this situation, Coca Cola could be exposed to similar lawsuits from the safety of the product that was manufactured by the bottler. This will lead to class action lawsuits, negative publicity and an investigation into their practices by regulators.

(Steinberg, 2009) (Cheesman, 2009) In the third section, criminal fraud occurred with John Walton conning Marion Marlow out of a $25,000 life insurance settlement. This is because he is not licensed to offer this kind of advice under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. At the same time, he is in violation of the Uniform Securities Act by deceiving Marlow into thinking that this was real investment. When in reality, it was nothing more than a scheme to defraud her of the money.

(Steinberg, 2009) (Cheesman, 2009) The fair use doctrine is protected as free speech. This is because broadcasters are given the right to publish conflicting opinions and parities as long as they are not liable. Under the New York Times vs. Sullivan, liable must be demonstrated with the other party knowing it is false and maliciously releasing it anyway. (Steinberg, 2009) (Cheesman, 2009) Briefing Paper 4 Assume your readers know the facts of the case and are only seeking your opinions on the three questions found at the end of Section 6.10.

Argue both sides of all three questions What are the elements to prove negligence? To prove negligence there are several different standards which must be followed to include: The existence of duty of owed. An applicable standard of care. A connection between the incident and the injury. Intent to injure the person. If any plaintiff can meet these guidelines, they can sue for damages under the law.

Evidence of this can be seen with insights from McHugh (2011) who said, "A claim in negligence is based on the assumption that the provider owes a duty of care to all those who can reasonably be expected to make use of its product. In the case of 'dangerous' products such as those which, if defective, could cause extensive harm this duty may be owed to anybody who may reasonably be.