100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
SOLUTION MANUAL For Law for Business, 15th Edition By Barnes, Lemper, All Chapters 1 - 47, Complete Newest Version $20.49   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Law For Business 15th Edition, Barnes
  4.  
  5. Law for Business 15th Edition, Barnes

Exam (elaborations)

SOLUTION MANUAL For Law for Business, 15th Edition By Barnes, Lemper, All Chapters 1 - 47, Complete Newest Version
 13 views  0 purchase
  • Course
  • Law for Business 15th Edition, Barnes
  • Institution
  • Law For Business 15th Edition, Barnes

SOLUTION MANUAL For Law for Business, 15th Edition By A. James Barnes, Timothy Lemper, Verified Chapters 1 - 47, Complete Newest Version Test bank and solution manual pdf Test bank and solution manual pdf free download Test bank and solution manual pdf download Test bank and solution manual f...

[Show more]

Preview 10 out of 414  pages

Document information

  • July 17, 2024
  • 414
  • 2024/2025
  • Exam (elaborations)
  • Questions & answers

Subjects

  • solution manual for law for business 15th edition

Written for

  • Law for Business 15th Edition, Barnes
  • Law for Business 15th Edition, Barnes

Seller

avatar-seller
LectWarren

Reviews received

Content preview

SOLUTION MANUAL
Law or Business 15h Edion,
By Barnes, Lemper, All Chapers 1 - 47




TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART ONE: Inroducon o he Law

Chaper 1: Law and Legal Reasoning

Chaper 2: Dispue Selemen

Chaper 3: Business Ehics and Corporae Social Responsibiliy

Chaper 4: Business and he Consuon

Chaper 5: Criminal Law and Procedure

Chaper 6: Inenonal Tors

Chaper 7: Negligence and Sric Liabiliy

Chaper 8: Inellecual Propery

PART TWO: Conracs

Chaper 9: The Naure and Origins o Conracs

Chaper 10: Creang a Conrac: Oers

Chaper 11: Creang a Conrac: Accepances

Chaper 12: Consideraon

Chaper 13: Capaciy o Conrac

Chaper 14: Consen o Conrac

Chaper 15: Illegaliy

,Chaper 16: Form and Meaning o Conracs

Chaper 17: Third Pares’ Conrac Righs

Chaper 18: Conrac Perormance and Remedies

PART THREE: Sales

Chaper 19: Formaon and Terms o Sales Conracs

Chaper 20: Warranes and Produc Liabiliy

Chaper 21: Perormance o Sales Conracs

Chaper 22: Remedies or Breach o Sales Conracs

PART FOUR: Agency and Employmen

Chaper 23: The Agency Relaonship—Creaon, Dues, and Terminaon

Chaper 24: Liabiliy o Principals and Agens o Third Pares

Chaper 25: Employmen Laws

PART FIVE: Business Organizaons

Chaper 26: Which Form o Business Organizaon?

Chaper 27: Parnerships

Chaper 28: Formaon and Terminaon o Corporaons

Chaper 29: Managemen o he Corporae Business

Chaper 30: Financing he Corporaon and he Role o he Shareholders

Chaper 31: Securies Regulaon

Chaper 32: Legal Liabiliy o Accounans

PART SIX: Propery

Chaper 33: Personal Propery and Bailmens

Chaper 34: Real Propery

Chaper 35: Landlord and Tenan

Chaper 36: Esaes and Truss

Chaper 37: Insurance

PART SEVEN: Commercial Paper

Chaper 38: Negoable Insrumens

Chaper 39: Negoaon and Holder in Due Course

,Chaper 40: Liabiliy o Pares

Chaper 41: Checks and Elecronic Fund Transers

PART EIGHT: Credi Transacons

Chaper 42: Inroducon o Securiy

Chaper 43: Securiy Ineress in Personal Propery

Chaper 44: Bankrupcy

PART NINE: Governmen Regulaon

Chaper 45: The Anrus Laws

Chaper 46: Consumer Proecon Laws

Chaper 47: Environmenal Regulaon




CHAPTER 1: LAW AND LEGAL REASONING



LECTURE OUTLINE



1. Discuss he Twisdale case ha opens his chaper. I provides an ineresng vehicle or discussing
he uncons o law and legal inerpreaon.



a. Have your sudens ideny he various uncons o he law and hen discuss which specic
uncons are urhered by his anrealiaon aspecs o he Civil Righs saue.



b. In he conex o legal inerpreaon, he cour ound ha Twisdale did seem o be proeced
based on he lieral language o he saue. However, i looked beyond he plain meaning o rejec his
claim. Specically, he cour believed ha inerpreng he law in a manner ha would proec him rom
realiaon would undermine he purpose o he saue. I is conceivable ha he cour is movaed by
public policy concerns as well.



c. Wha do your sudens hink o cours who do look a inen and public policy? Use his as a
lead-in or a discussion o legal jurisprudence.

,2. Queson sudens abou heir denions o ―law.‖ Make cerain hey undersand he
imporance o law in all aspecs o our lives.



3. Discuss he various uncons ha law serves in sociey. You migh do his by having he sudens
ideny some o hem.



a. Discuss he conics ha arise beween and among he various uncons o law. For example,
here ofen are conics beween he goals o individual reedom and achieving social jusce. Noe he
problems ha arise when here is no clear consensus on wha is jus.



b. Ask he sudens i hey hink ha law ever is ―overused.‖ They are likely o cie numerous
examples. For insance, his migh be a me o alk abou he produc liabiliy cases ha are regularly in
he headlines. Perhaps he case involving he woman who burned hersel wih coee rom McDonald’s
would be appropriae here.



c. Have he sudens discuss wha i means o have he law mainain order. You migh ask sudens
i mainaining order means mainaining he saus quo. This can lead o a discussion o legal realism and
views ha law is used by hose in power o reain heir power.



4. There is a endency or people o hink o law as imposing dues wihou considering how i
esablishes and preserves righs. Talk abou how our sysem ries o mach righs wih corresponding
dues.



a. Explain how dues, righs, and privileges make up subsanve law.



b. Explain ha procedural law provides he ramework wihin which subsanve laws are creaed
and enorced. Poin ou ha Chapers 2 and 4 oer a more deailed discussion o procedural law.



5. Ask he sudens o hink o an example o a duy imposed by subsanve law ha migh violae
some moral or ehical belie. This migh be a good me o alk abou he various schools o legal
jurisprudence. Have hem speculae how a legal posivis would dier rom a legal sociologis or naural
law heoris in handling such siuaons.



6. Conras criminal law wih civil law.

,a. Poin ou ha sociey considers i much worse o be conviced o a crime han o be held civilly
liable. Explain how, as a resul, here are more exacng procedural saeguards o proec a deendan in a
criminal rial han in a civil rial.



b. Noe he dierence beween compensaory damages and punive damages. Discuss he curren
uproar over punive damages and he Supreme Cour’s aemp o rein hem in. See Sae Farm Muual
Auomobile Insurance v. Campbell, 123 S.C. 1513 (U.S. Sup. C. 2003) (esablishing guideposs or
calculang punive damages). Punive damages are discussed urher in Chaper 6.



c. Poin ou ha ofen one can be subjec o sancons under boh criminal and civil laws wihou
violang he proscripon agains ―double jeopardy.‖ Find ou i he sudens hink ha punive
damages in a civil rial, coupled wih nes in a criminal rial, consue a ype o double jeopardy.



Marinello v. Unied Saes



Marinello was charged wih he crime o corruply impeding he due adminisraon o he Tax Code afer
he engaged in several acvies ha underrepored his axable income. However, he

U.S. Supreme Cour overurned his criminal convicon because Marinello was unaware ha he was
under IRS invesgaon a he me o his acvies. Cing he need o consrue criminal



saues narrowly, he Cour ruled ha he parcular saue—he Omnibus Clause—did no cover all
acvies ha underrepored income. The Cour believed ha he saue covered a narrower range o
acvies aimed direcly a hwarng he acvies o invesgaons when he axpayer knew or should
have known an invesgaon was underway.



Poins or Discussion: This case is placed in he ex as an example o he general rules underlying
criminal law. Specically, a person generally canno be conviced o a crime unless he or she violaes a
saue. However, such saues mus be objecvely clear o a reasonable person. This Governmen’s
inerpreaon o his saue was believed o gran he Governmen oo much discreon in deermining
wha consued a crime.



7. The brie inroducon o our legal sysem should be a review or mos sudens.

,a. The consuonal law maerial is more heavily discussed in Chaper 4. An argumen can be
made or i o be presened immediaely ollowing his chaper. However, we believe sudens should
rs review Chaper 2’s discussion o he dispue resoluon sysem.



b. Talk abou he role o he cours in deermining he consuonaliy o legislaon. Do hey
believe his gives he cours oo much power?



c. Explain he relaonship beween sae laws and ederal laws. Make cerain he sudens
undersand ha sae laws may no violae he ederal consuon and mus be consisen wih ederal
saues.



Henry Schein v. Archer & Whie Sales



The Federal Arbiraon Ac provides ha pares may, hrough heir power o conrac, agree ha heir
dispues will be arbiraed. In addion, he Ac allows hose same pares o agree ha an arbiraor,
raher han a cour, will deermine wheher ha arbiraon clause applies o any parcular dispue hey
may have. However, several ederal appellae cours carved ou a ―wholly groundless‖ excepon o he
laer rule by which hey allowed cours o conclude ha arbiraon was no appropriae when he cour
believed he claim o arbirabiliy was groundless. In his case, he U.S. Supreme Cour, cing boh he
saue and Supreme Cour preceden, ruled ha he

―wholly groundless‖ excepon was impermissible because i conradiced he saue.



Poins or Discussion: This case is an example o he limis on he judiciary’s discreon under he
common law. I illusraes ha in he hierarchy o laws, legislave law is superior o judge- made law. I
also illusraes he role o preceden in inerpreng saues.



8. The maerial on sauory inerpreaon can be exremely imporan in laying he oundaon or
how lawyers hink. More imporanly, i eaches sudens valuable crical hinking skills. Take he
sudens hrough he process or inerpreng saues. You may discuss sauory inerpreaon and legal
jurisprudence ogeher. Noe how posiviss ofen have problems



moving beyond he ―plain meaning‖ o words while naural law heoriss and legal sociologiss are
accused o ignoring hem.



Bosock v. Clayon Couny, Georgia

,Employers argued ha Civil Righs Ac’s prohibion agains discriminaon based on sex did no proec
employees who were red because hey were homosexual or ransgender. The employers assered ha
he law should no be expanded o proec hese employees because he legislaors who originally
enaced he saue would no have envisioned i being exended in his way. The

U.S. Supreme Cour disagreed. I ound no ambiguiy in he plain meaning o he saue—he Cour
believed he sauory language clearly prohibied such discriminaon because i was based on sex.



Poins or Discussion: Explain how he cour reused o look beyond he plain meaning o he saue,
concluding ha i would be wrong o aemp o glean he inen o each legislaor who voed or he
law. Discuss wheher his opinion is ruly legal posivis in naure. Explore how i migh have underones
o legal sociology.



9. Discuss he concep o sare decisis.



a. Noe how sare decisis promoes sabiliy.



Sewar v. Jusce



Resauran owners asked he cour o enjoin enorcemen o an execuve order requiring resauran
employees and cusomers o wear masks. The cour upheld he Mask Mandae, reasoning ha i was
reasonably designed o proec he healh o he public rom he spread o he COVID virus.



Poins or Discussion: Use his case o explain he process o sare decisis. Noe how he cour, in he
absence o clear preceden dealing wih COVID resricons, looked or guidance o a smallpox case
decided by he U.S. Supreme Cour more han 100 years ago. You migh also use his case o discuss
execuve orders and heir place in he hierarchy o legal rules. Explain how execuve orders may no
violae consuonal proecons. This case is also conneced o Chaper 4 and is discussion o due
process.



a. Noe how sare decisis permis change.

,b. Explain how he rule agains ex pos aco laws does no apply o insances where he cour has
reinerpreed a saue. Discuss how his can pose problems or people who relied on he original
inerpreaon.



c. Discuss he power o higher cours o overurn precedens and he risks ha arise when his
occurs.



Souh Dakoa v. Wayair



Two long-sanding U.S. Supreme Cour decisions long had inerpreed he Commerce Clause o preven
saes rom levying sales axes on sales unless he seller had a physical locaon in he ax-assessing sae.
Souh Dakoa asked he Cour o overurn hose precedens and permi saes o impose axes on online
sales o in-sae consumers. The Supreme Cour agreed wih Souh Dakoa, concluding ha he
preceden cases were no longer appropriae or he changed dynamics o he naonal economy in ligh
o he Cyber Age.



Poins or Discussion: This case is designed o demonsrae he condions under which a cour will
deviae rom sare decisis and overurn a previous holding. Cours generally are relucan o overrule a
preceden ou o concern ha ohers have relied on he prior holding. However, sressing ha sare
decisis is no an ―inexorable command,‖ he Cour el an obligaon o overurn he prior holding when,
as here, he preceden no only ails o reec realies o sociey, bu acually is harmul o he Saes.
Ask he sudens o speculae abou oher areas where, in ligh o he realies o modern lie, old
precedens may be ou o dae. Is personal privacy one o hose areas?



10. The maerials on jurisprudence are designed o illusrae how peoples’ values shape heir
inerpreaon o he law. You migh recommend ha sudens examine each decision in he chaper and
indicae wha school o jurisprudence he judge appears o represen. Have hem analyze a case rom
he poin o view o each o he schools o hough.



a. Conras he legal posivis wih a naural law hinker. Emphasize ha sudens should no
conuse naural law wih any parcular religion. Discuss he Rochin case reerred o in he secon on
Naural Law. Discuss why a cour migh eel compelled o explain ha is decision is no based on naural
law.



Sesay v. Aorney General

,Sesay was kidnapped by rebels and orced, a gunpoin, o carry heir weapons and supplies. Afer
escaping, he enered he Unied Saes and requesed asylum. This reques was reused because he
applicable immigraon saue does no allow he granng o asylum o individuals who have knowingly
aorded maerial suppor o erroriss. The cour reused o overrule he denial o asylum because he
immigraon saue did no conain a duress excepon.



Poins or Discussion: I is no clear ha his cour adheres o legal posivism. However, he cour’s
unwillingness o consider he ac ha Sesay was orced o assis he rebels cerainly akes on he
appearance o a posivis decision. The cour makes clear ha despie an inequiable



resul, Congress or he Execuve Branch (no he cours) mus address his issue. This illusraes he
harshness ha may aend legal posivis decision. Explain how a legal sociologis cour migh reach a
dieren resul.



a. Explain how legal sociologiss ofen have a social agenda and, accordingly, make decisions ha
promoe ha view o how he world should be ordered. Discuss he Buck

v. Bell case ha is reerenced in he secon on Sociological Jurisprudence. Explain how his case arose a
a me when sociees, ollowing he advice o geneciss, believed ha he human sock could be
srenghened by weeding ou weaker members. (This was par o he impeus or Nazi Germany’s pursui
o a maser race.) In he nal line o he decision, in suppor o is ruling ha Carrie Buck could be
serilized, he cour said:

―Three generaons o imbeciles are enough.‖ How do your sudens eel abou his saemen? How do
hey eel abou he case?



b. Sudens have a more dicul me comprehending legal realism. You migh explain realism as a
way o examining he suspeced movaons o oher decision makers or law enorcers. Raher han
accep he decision maker’s explanaon o her decision a ace value, he realis reads beween he lines
o see i here is a hidden agenda. You may ask sudens i hey believe ha a person is able o shed his
or her personal biases upon becoming a judge.



11. The concep o prevenve law is cenral o a course designed or business sudens. The ineres
o business people in law ordinarily is sricly insrumenal—o use heir knowledge o he law o reach
business objecves. Explain how knowledge o he law can avoid losses as well as permi opporunies.

, ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND PROBLEM CASES



1. Some o he primary uncons o law are o keep he peace, enorce sandards o conduc,
mainain he saus quo, aciliae planning, and promoe social jusce.



2. Cours make law in hree ways: (1) hrough inerpreaon, (2) by ―nding‖ he common law,
and (3) hrough judicial review.



3. The cour’s ailure o consider he equiable problems involved wih his oucome makes i
appear o be a legal posivis decision. Raher han rying o remedy wha appears o be an unair resul,
he cour conned is analysis o a lieral reading o he saue. This sounds like he hinking o a legal
posivis. Bowles v. Russell, 127 S.C. 2360 (U.S. Sup. C. 2007).



4. No. The esmony by he FDA ocial should no have been admied ino evidence. I here is a
requiremen ha he FDA’s approval mus be obained beore a ―bes when purchased by‖ dae may be
changed, i would, o be a lawul predicae o a criminal convicon, have o be ound in some saue or
regulaon, or a leas in some wrien inerpreve guideline or opinion, and no jus in he oral
esmony o an agency employee. I is a denial o due process o law o convic a person o a crime
because he violaed some bureaucra’s secre undersanding o he law. The idea o secre laws is
repugnan. People canno comply wih laws he exisence o which is concealed. Unied Saes v.
Farinella, 558 F.3d 695 (7h Cir. 2009).



5. This is no a legal posivis cour. The cour looked beyond he plain meaning o he saue,
concluding ha no every angible objec alls wihin he meaning o he law. When a cour looks a he
conex o a law, i is examining he purpose o he law (and somemes he policies ha migh be
implicaed by enorcing or dismissing he complain). This sounds like a legal sociologis. Yaes v. Unied
Saes, 135 S.C. 1074 (U.S. Sup. C. 2015).



6. The cour will use he process o sauory inerpreaon o decide his queson. I will begin by
looking a he plain meaning o he word ―vessel‖ o see i oang home clearly alls wihin ha erm. I
he plain (diconary meaning and common usage) does no conclusively decide he case, he cour will
look ino he legislave hisory in order o deermine he inen o Congress when i enaced he saue.
Here he cour concluded ha he sauory inen applies o an ―arcial conrivance capable o being
used as a means o ransporaon on waer. Consequenly, in our view, a srucure does no all wihin
he scope o his sauory phrase. A cour migh also look beyond his purpose inquiry o deermine i
here are public policy argumens or or agains nding he oang home o be a vessel wihin he
meaning o he saue. I ulmaely concluded ha here were policy argumens agains labeling he
craf as a vessel. Adopng a version o he ―anyhing ha oas‖ es would place unnecessary and

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller LectWarren. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $20.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

79064 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$20.49
  • (0)
  Add to cart