This is because a person is able to understand the history of Rockwell much better, and the opportunity to understand both sides of the case. An individual is able to grasp the account of the drama that took place during that time clear up until the present. Anyone who hears the conversation quickly learns that Rockwell purposefully chose to have products on the market to harm consumers. When in reality, this should not appear as the case for anybody to endure because someone could get hurt, and the company is more likely to face a larger law suit that could make the business go bankrupt. Upon seeking to identify with both sides, a person has to consider every argument before making a decision because there really are two sides to every story, which is where the justices were divided in the federal and state level. The dialogue through the conversations was not shocking to me at all because they are typical in a court case because both sides are attempting to prove and win their case with the judge. I would approach it the same as the justices due to needing to make a decision where everyone is satisfied with the outcome. In...

All the questions raised were thought provoking. Anyone who was trying to make their point did an excellent job. If I were the lawyer, I would do everything possible to attempt to understand the problem in order to come up with a solution. With this case, many issues are present, such as laws that are broken and who has the original information. Much contemplation would occur, and a decision would take time.
The party that I felt was more persuasive with their argument was Stone. They had over 2,300 arguments presented, investigations took place at Rockwell and much evidence was present throughout their case. For anyone serving on the jury, all of them would struggle in coming up with how to decipher a verdict. The lawyers explained FCA quite well, and made sure that there was another way of looking at it in order to accomplish the task at hand. At first, I thought that Stone should win because of all the data he had, but after hearing the judges' perspectives in both courts I believed otherwise. If I were on the jury, I would not have done well because of how well each side proved their points.

As one can tell, this case is quite controversial, and all the arguments have merit to them. The oral point-of-views and the written have much detail, and this made it difficult to come up with a decision; however, Stone did not prove his point well enough. In the end, Rockwell succeeded, and presently this would have more likely occurred in the court system. I found everything interesting, and it made me think of what a person can do to make a business better in hopes that management will obey the law in order to avoid future lawsuits.