Jury 1 B - E (first letter of last name) DUE at 11pm The Case of the Customer Who Died to Soon Facts: On October 26, a Ruby Country Life Insurance agent went to the house of Penny and Chip Singh. He persuaded the Singhs to buy a life insurance policy and accepted a check for $1,600. On his way out the door, he gave the Singhs a “conditional receipt for medical policy,” dated that day. The form stated that the Singhs would have a valid life insurance policy with Ruby Country Life, effective October 26, but only when all conditions were met. The most important of these conditions was that the Ruby Country Life home office accept the Singhs as medical risks after the company scheduled a medical examination. The Singhs were pleased with the new policy and glad that it was effective that same day. Chip died in a car accident three weeks later. Ruby Country Life declined the Singhs as medical risks and refused to issue a policy. Penny Singh sued. Ruby Country Life pointed out that medical approval was a condition to being covered. In other words, the company argued that the policy would be effective as of October 26, but only if it later decided to make the policy effective. It had not made that decision as of the date of Chip’s death. At Trial Plaintiff argued that the policy was a scam. The so called “conditional receipt for medical policy” is designed to trick customers and then steal their money. The company leads people to believe they are covered as of the day they write the check. But they aren’t covered until much later, when the insurer gets around to deciding the applicant’s medical status. The company gets the customer’s money right away and gives nothing in exchange. If the company, after taking its time, decides the applicant is not medically fit, it returns the money, having used it for weeks or even months to earn interest. If, on the other hand, the insurance company decides the applicant is a good bet, it then issues the policy effective for weeks or months in the past, when coverage is of no use. No one can die retroactively. The company is being paid for a period during which it had no risk. Defendant, Ruby Country Life, argued that it would be impracticable for Ruby Country Life to issue life insurance policies without doing a medical check. That is the road to bankruptcy and would mean that no one could obtain this valuable coverage. They further argued that they do a medical inquiry as quickly as possible as it is in their interest to get the policy decided one way or the other. The policy clearly stated that coverage was effective only when approved by the home office, after all inquiries were made. The Singhs knew that as well as the agent. If they were covered immediately, why would the company do a medical check? Questions: Does the clause making the policy effective only after a medical examination violate public policy? Explain What other basis for a lawsuit might Penny have against the insurance company? Explain Based on your answers to Nos. 1 and 2 who will win this case and why?
Jury 1 T - Z (first letter of last name) DUE at 11pm 22 unread replies.22 replies. The Case of the Customer Who Died to Soon Facts: On October 26, a Topaz Country Life Insurance agent went to the house of Cynthia and Stan Williams. He persuaded the Williams to buy a life insurance policy and accepted a check for $1,600. On his way out the door, he gave the Williams a “conditional receipt for medical policy,” dated that day. The form stated that the Williams would have a valid life insurance policy with Topaz Country Life, effective October 26, but only when all conditions were met. The most important of these conditions was that the Topaz Country Life home office accept the Williams as medical risks after the company scheduled a medical examination. The Williams were pleased with the new policy and glad that it was effective that same day. Stan died in a car accident three weeks later. Topaz Country Life declined the Williams as medical risks and refused to issue a policy. Cynthia Williams sued. Topaz Country Life pointed out that medical approval was a condition to being covered. In other words, the company argued that the policy would be effective as of October 26, but only if it later decided to make the policy effective. It had not made that decision as of the date of Stan’s death. At Trial Plaintiff argued that the policy was a scam. The so called “conditional receipt for medical policy” is designed to trick customers and then steal their money. The company leads people to believe they are covered as of the day they write the check. But they aren’t covered until much later, when the insurer gets around to deciding the applicant’s medical status. The company gets the customer’s money right away and gives nothing in exchange. If the company, after taking its time, decides the applicant is not medically fit, it returns the money, having used it for weeks or even months to earn interest. If, on the other hand, the insurance company decides the applicant is a good bet, it then issues the policy effective for weeks or months in the past, when coverage is of no use. No one can die retroactively. The company is being paid for a period during which it had no risk. Defendant, Topaz Country Life, argued that it would be impracticable for Topaz Country Life to issue life insurance policies without doing a medical check. That is the road to bankruptcy and would mean that no one could obtain this valuable coverage. They further argued that they do a medical inquiry as quickly as possible as it is in their interest to get the policy decided one way or the other. The policy clearly stated that coverage was effective only when approved by the home office, after all inquiries were made. The Williams knew that as well as the agent. If they were covered immediately, why would the company do a medical check? Questions: Does the clause making the policy effective only after a medical examination violate public policy? Explain What other basis for a lawsuit might Cynthia have against the insurance company? Explain Based on your answers to Nos. 1 and 2 who will win this case and why? Search entries or author
Jury 1 F- K (first letter of last name) DUE at 11pm The Case of the Director Who Wore Too Many Hats Sarah is one of 5 directors of Lavish Investments Corporation. She is also a majority shareholder holding both common and preferred stock. Her stock with voting rights amounts to 47% of all stock issued with voting rights. Sarah buys, for $1,500, an option to purchase a tract of real estate called Blueacre, which is next to Lavish’s home office, for $50,000. Sarah forms a new corporation, Commercial Property, Inc., to hold the option. She then has Commercial Property buy Blueacre. As a director of Lavish, Sarah orders Lavish to authorize its real estate agent to negotiate the purchase of the land from Commercial Property for $100,000. After a successful negotiation for the purchase of Blueacre for $100,000, Sarah has Commercial Property sell it to Lavish, and loan the money to Lavish for the purchase price at a 5% interest rate which is 2% below the market rate. Pablo, a minority shareholder in Lavish, formally complains to Lavish’s board which takes no action. The Trial Pablo files a suit against Sarah on Lavish’s behalf seeking to cancel the sale. Sarah asks the Court to dismiss the lawsuit as Pablo has no standing to bring the lawsuit. Arguments At Trial Sarah’s attorney argues that Blueacre is necessary for Lavish as it will allow them to expand their offices and production plant thus increasing the net worth and potential profits to the shareholders. Further, the Board of Directors of Lavish authorized the purchase which appeared to be in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation. Pablo’ attorney argues that the purchase of Blueacre should have been put to a vote of the shareholders of Lavish as required by Lavish’s Bylaws. Lavish’s Board of Directors failed in its duty to make sure this sale was in the corporation’s best interest. Questions to Decide What kind of suit will Pablo file and what is its basis? Who are the Plaintiffs and who are the Defendants? Why? What are the defenses, if any, of Lavish or Sarah? Who will win the case and why?
Jury 1 Aa - Az (first letter of last name) DUE at 11pm Case of Global Ethics vs. Global Economy This is a case that will be tried in the court of Public Opinion. Topanga Shoe Company, a United States corporation, buys clothing assembled by Corkie, LTD., a foreign company that employs children under 12 years of age. These children work nine hour days and for low pay. Corkie’s nation does not enforce its child labor laws limiting workdays to seven hours for children under 12. Many times the children’s income is needed by the family for basic necessities. Topanga and Corkie are aware of this. Humanitarian International Politics (HIP), an international political activist organization, discovered Topanga's connection to Corkie, LTD. HIP plans to reveal this information to the press and on social media. Topanga hears about this proposed action by HIP. Before HIP can act, Topanga terminates its relationship with Corkie. Topanga then publicizes this action in its advertising. The company’s sales and profits increase, apparently as a direct result. Has Topanga acted unethically in any way(s)? Explain using one of the ethical philosophies from the readings and facts from the scenario. From an ethical perspective, is Topanga’s conduct in terminating its relationship with Corkie more important than whatever its motive might be? Why or why not?
Recently, the US Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. By a 6-3 vote, the Court has created a carve out to public state accommodation laws that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation. The Court ruled that a proclaimed Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. The Court created this exception on the basis of 1st Amendment free speech. Summaries of this Court decision (including the full Court opinion) can be found in the links below. For a possible (3) points extra credit, please answer the following questions: 1. What potential ramifications does this decision have on businesses? Does this open the door for private businesses to legally discriminate against other protected classes of people? 2. Based on this decision, can the tables be turned - can a private business such as a lawyer refuse to represent a client based on their political orientation? For example, if a lawyer finds individuals who identify as MAGA to be adverse to their personal beliefs, and as their work involves the business of speech, can the lawyer expressly decline cases purely on the basis of political affiliation? 3. Does your answer in question #2 change if the facts are revised such that the lawyer refuses to represent any clients whose religious beliefs differ from those of the lawyer? https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1182121291/colorado-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision#:~:text=By%20a%206%2Dto%2D3,creating%20a%20message%20she%20opposesLinks to an external site.. https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-gay-rights-website-designer-aa529361bc939c837ec2ece216b296d5Links to an external site.
The Case of the Director Who Wore Too Many Hats Sarah is one of 5 directors of Lavish Investments Corporation. She is also a majority shareholder holding both common and preferred stock. Her stock with voting rights amounts to 47% of all stock issued with voting rights. Sarah buys, for $1,500, an option to purchase a tract of real estate called Blueacre, which is next to Lavish’s home office, for $50,000. Sarah forms a new corporation, Commercial Property, Inc., to hold the option. She then has Commercial Property buy Blueacre. As a director of Lavish, Sarah orders Lavish to authorize its real estate agent to negotiate the purchase of the land from Commercial Property for $100,000. After a successful negotiation for the purchase of Blueacre for $100,000, Sarah has Commercial Property sell it to Lavish, and loan the money to Lavish for the purchase price at a 5% interest rate which is 2% below the market rate. Pablo, a minority shareholder in Lavish, formally complains to Lavish’s board which takes no action. The Trial Pablo files a suit against Sarah on Lavish’s behalf seeking to cancel the sale. Sarah asks the Court to dismiss the lawsuit as Pablo has no standing to bring the lawsuit. Arguments At Trial Sarah’s attorney argues that Blueacre is necessary for Lavish as it will allow them to expand their offices and production plant thus increasing the net worth and potential profits to the shareholders. Further, the Board of Directors of Lavish authorized the purchase which appeared to be in accordance with the Articles of Incorporation. Pablo’ attorney argues that the purchase of Blueacre should have been put to a vote of the shareholders of Lavish as required by Lavish’s Bylaws. Lavish’s Board of Directors failed in its duty to make sure this sale was in the corporation’s best interest. Questions to Answer What kind of suit will Pablo file and what is its basis? Who are the Plaintiffs and who are the Defendants? Why? What are the defenses, if any, of Lavish or Sarah? Who will win the case and why? There need to be references from the textbook the text book link is Business Law and the Legal Environment | OER Commons
Please select two of the following questions and compose an essay of at least 1200 words for each question. Please compose a essay. Outlines or bullet points, however detailed, will not be accepted. An essay of less than 1200 words will not be accepted. You may organize and present your answer in whatever fashion you believe would be most effective. You do not have to present your answer to mirror the question. Just say what needs to be said. We will discuss the questions in class, and I will be pleased to help in any way that I can before the exam is due. Just contact me and I will try to help 1. Contract law is obviously a basic component of the law regulating the conduct of business. What are the required elements of a valid contract? What purposes are served by these requirements? How are breaches of contract treated by the law? Select some relevant examples and illustrate some of the ways in which contract law regulates property relationships and business organizations. 2. Tort law constitutes a basic component of the law regulating business. Explain the legal grounds for tort liability. What kinds of behavior create tort liability? How is tort liability ascertained and processed by courts? What purposes are served by defining these categories of liability? Select some relevant examples and illustrate some of the ways in which tort law regulates property relationships and business organizations. 3. Individuals own real property according to various legal classifications or categories. We distinguish between possessory and non-possessory interests. Please describe the various categories of possessory and non-possessory interests. How are they similar? How are they different? How are they related to each other? Explain possessory and non-possessory interests. 4. Real property can be transferred in a variety of ways. These include: contract of sale deeds secured transactions adverse possession public and private controls decedents' estates Discuss these methods of transferring property. What are their features? How are they similar? How are they different?
Assignment: Research "THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION" and "THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU" Address, at a minimum, the following: The legal protections afforded to consumers by these bodies The rules/laws/regulations that these bodies apply/enforce to provide those protections The steps that are taken to investigate/enforce violations of consumer rights The penalties that may be imposed for violating these rules/laws/regulations The "real" impact and significance of their activities on U.S. commerce Anything else that catches your interest
