Article : ESSENTIALS of BUSINESS LAW [FIFTH EDITION] By Jeffrey F. Beatty and Susan S. Samuelson
Basic citing could be class textbook: you need to mention the name of book, author, and page # as well.
Please answer chapter one essay question and make sure to cite your answers. (without citing less points)
Chapter one assignment : Essay question s #2,3,4,5- page 20-21
make sure when the question ask for your opinion, you should say, "after my study of textbook, page # or following site/s, I think, I believe". In business I feel, I think does not have any place.
2. As "The Oculist's Case" indicates, the medical profession has faced a large number of lawsuits for centuries. In Texas, a law provides that, so long as a doctor was not reckless and did not intentionally harm a patient, recovery for "pain and suffering" is limited to $750,000. In many other states, no such limit exists.
If a patient will suffer a lifetime of pain after a botched operation, for example, he might recover millions in compensation. Which rule seems more sensible to you-the "Texas" rule or the alternative?
3. YOU BE THE JUDGE WRITING PROBLEM Should trials be televised? Here are a few arguments on both sides of the issue. You be the judge. Arguments against live television coverage: We have tried this experiment and it has failed. Trials fall into two categories: those that create great public interest and those that do not.
No one watches dull trials, so we do not need to broadcast them. The few that are interesting have all become circuses. Judges and lawyers have shown that they cannot resist the temptation to play to the camera. Trials are supposed to be about justice, not entertainment.
If a citizen seriously wants to follow a case, she can do it by reading the daily newspaper. Arguments for live television coverage: It is true that some televised trials have been unseemly affairs, but that is the fault of the presiding judges, not the media. Indeed, one of the virtues of television coverage is that millions of people now understand that we have a lot of incompetent people running our courtrooms.
The proper response is to train judges to run a tight trial by prohibiting grandstanding by lawyers. Access to accurate information is the foundation on which a democracy is built, and we must not eliminate a source of valuable data just because some judges are ill-trained or otherwise incompetent.
4. Leslie Bergh and his two brothers, Milton and Raymond, formed a partnership to help build a fancy saloon and dance hall in Evanston, Wyoming. Later, Leslie met with his friend and drinking buddy, John Mills, and tricked Mills into investing in the saloon. Leslie did not tell Mills that no one else was investing cash or that the entire enterprise was already bankrupt.
Mills mortgaged his home, invested $150,000 in the saloon-and lost every penny of it. Mills sued all three partners for fraud. Milton and Raymond defended on the grounds that they did not commit the fraud; only Leslie did. The defendants lost. Was that fair? By holding them liable, what general idea did the court rely on? What Anglo-Saxon legal custom did the ruling resemble?
5. Kuehn v. Pub Zone and Soldano v. O'Daniels both involve attacks in a bar. Should they have the same result? If so, in which way-in favor of the injured plaintiffs or ownerdefendants? If not, why should they have different outcomes? What are the key facts that lead you to believe as you do?