Reference no: EM131096235

LEGAL AND ETHICAL ASPECTS OF MANAGEMENT

BUSINESS TORTS

Question 1 - Douglas Margreiter

Douglas Margreiter was severely injured in New Orleans on the night of April 6, 1976. He was the chief of the pharmacy section of the Colorado Department of Social Services and was in New Orleans to attend the annual meeting of the American Pharmaceutical Association.

On Tuesday evening, April 6, Mr. Margreiter had dinner at the Royal Sonesta Hotel with two associates from Colorado who were attending the meeting and were staying in rooms adjacent to Mr. Margreiter's in the New Hotel Monteleone. Mr. Margreiter returned to his room between 10:30 P.M. and 11:00 r..; one of his friends returned to his adjoining room at the same time. Another friend was to come by Mr. Margreiter's room later to discuss what sessions of the meetings each would attend the next day.

About three hours later, Mr. Margreiter was found severely beaten and unconscious in a parking lot three blocks from the Monteleone. The police who found him said they thought he was highly intoxicated, and they took him to Charity Hospital. His friends later had him moved to the Hotel Dieu.

Mr. Margreiter said two men had unlocked his hotel room door and entered his room. He was beaten about the head and shoulders and had only the recollection of being carried to a dark alley. He required a craniotomy and other medical treatment and suffered permanent effects from the incident.

Margreiter sued the hotel on grounds that the hotel was negligent in not controlling access to elevators and hence to the guests' rooms. The hotel Mr. Ivlargreiter was intoxicated and met his fate de the hotel.

Question 1 : Is the hotel liable? Why?

QUESTION 2 - The A & N Food Market

The A & N Food Market in Flushing, New York has adopted the following procedures when its security cameras observe shoppers stealing store merchandise:
- The alleged thief's identification is taken
- The alleged thief is photographed holding the items they are alleged to have taken.
- The store security guards tell the alleged thieves that their pictures (with them holding the merchandise) will be displayed publicly in the store unless they pay for the items and pay a fine of $400.
- If they do not have $400 to pay the fine, the store holds their identification until they return with the $400.

This store, almost all of whose customers are Chinese, is using the same system to curb shoplifting that is used in China. There is a slogan posted at most retailers in China that warns of the store's fine policy: "Steal one, fine 10." The owners of the A & N Food Market maintain that their policies and procedures are legal because they are covered under the shopkeeper's privilege.

Question 2 : Are they correct? Are their actions covered under the privilege?

PRODUCT LIABILITY

Question 3 - Wade Lederman

Wade Lederman, 31, was at a Fourth of July pool party at a relative's house in 1991. At about 10:30 P.M., Mr. Lederman, his brother, and two others decided to go swimming. They jumped from the sides of the pool into the water and also dove from the pool's diving board. At about midnight, Mr. Lederman dove into the pool from the side and struck his head on the bottom, sustaining permanent physical and neurological injuries.

The pool in which Mr. Lederman was injured is a residential swimming pool that is in-ground and oval-shaped, with a shallow end and a deep end. The pool has three steps at the shallow end by which swimmers can enter the pool. A white line one foot wide is painted on the bottom of the pool between the shallow end and the deep end. At the start of that line, the depth increases to 7 feet and then slowly descends to a depth of 10 feet at the diving-board end of the pool.

Mr. Lederman filed suit against Pacific Industries, Inc., the pool manufacturer, for its failure to display water depths in and around the pool; failure to warn as to which areas were not appropriate for diving; failure to warn that at night, with pool lights on, the depth of the pool was deceptive; and failure to warn that the white line was just the start of the deep end and not a line for diving versus non-diving areas of the pool.

Question 3 :Should Mr. Lederman recover damages from Pacific?

Question 4 - Taco Bell

On August 6, 1998, Mr. Ruvolo purchased two chicken gordita sandwiches from Taco Bell. While eating the second sandwich, he felt a sharp pain in his throat and dislodged a chicken bone. The bone caused a scrape in his throat, and, as a result, he was treated at an emergency room. The following day, Mr. Ruvolo was diagnosed with acute tonsillitis, pharyngitis, sinusitis, and gastritis.
Mr. Ruvulo sued Taco Bell and its food distributors, alleging that the infections were due to the chicken bone's scratching his throat and causing an opening where germs and bacteria could enter. He further alleged that Taco Bell and its food distributors were liable because of their failure to properly inspect the chicken.

Question 4 Required : Discuss the theories Mr. Ruvulo might use for recovery and who the defendants might be.

BUSINESS CONTRACTS

Question 5 -Is There An Offer?

Consider the following proposal description:
Attached are an original and two (2) carbon copies of our Proposal No. 620-M-86R covering the subject as agreed upon in your office last Friday, June 20, 1986.Please sign the original and one (1) copy on the lower left corner of page 9 and return to us for our execution. We will return one (1) executed copy for your files.

Again we thank you for selecting us for this project. We assure you it is receiving our best attention. Our Engineering Department is proceeding with the designs, fabrication drawings, and material orders.We look forward to your receiving the necessary permits.

The "proposal" consists of five pages of typewritten terms, setting forth specifications for the manufacture, assembly, and erection of a television tower and related items, and four pages of preprinted "Terms and Conditions of Sale." The printed portion includes the following relevant terms:

Acceptance of Proposal

This proposal is for immediate acceptance and prior to such acceptance is subject to modification or withdrawal without notice.Acceptance of this proposal will evidence Buyer's intent that the sale be governed solely by the terms and conditions of this proposal.

Any modifying, inconsistent or additional terms and conditions of Buyer's acceptance shall not become a part of any contract resulting from this proposal unless agreed to in writing by Kline. Any order or offer by Buyer as a result of this proposal shall not be binding upon Kline until accepted by Kline in writing by an officer of Kline. If accepted by Kline, this proposal shall constitute the agreement between the Buyer and Kline.

At the bottom of the final page are the following signature spaces:

KLINE IRON & STEEL CO., INC. GRAY COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
By ______________________________ By: ___________________________
(Seller) (Buyer)

Question 5 : Is there an offer? When would the earliest acceptance be?

Question 6 - Mace Industry vs Paddock Pools

Mace Industries, Inc. sent a quotation to Paddock Pools for water treatment equipment. Paddock responded with a purchase order that had the following written on its reverse side:

"THE SELLER AGREES TO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDMONS."

The clause was then followed by language stating that acceptance was expressly conditional upon Mace's acceptance of the terms.
Problems between the parties developed. Paddock says there is no contract because of its conditional acceptance. Mace maintains that there was a contract, with the only issues being the additional terms Paddock wrote on its purchase order and whether they are part of the contract.

Question 6 : Who is correct? Why?