Business Law

  • Uncategorized



QA.In this case, state court is the most appropriate since the contractbetween Chris, Matt, and Ian and Novelty outlines that only disputesbetween these parties can be brought before the state of Florida.Thus, personal jurisdiction is applicable in this case(Jones,2015).

QB.Mediation is one of the one of the alternative dispute resolutionmethods that can be applied in the case. The advantages of thismethod include the fact that it is relatively cheap compared to othermethods. Similarly, there are no legal principles forcing the partiesinvolved to mediate. It is completely based either bussiness orpersonal factors. However, the process can become a problem withoutfull disclosure from either party. It is also common to find one ofthe parties withdrawing from the process before it is completed.Negotiation is another method that can be employed to solve the case(Jones, 2015). Its advantages include the fact that the decision tonegotiate is not compelled by any law but cokes out of the interestsof the parties. Furthermore, it offers the parties completeflexibility in terms of time and place of meetings. However, it couldbe time consuming before reaching an agreement.

QC.The appropriate method is negotiation where Funny Face shouldnegotiate with Mr. Margolin on the terms of compensation (Jones,2015). This will help the company in keeping the case from the socialmedia as well as give it a chance to make the appropriate changes toits products.

QD.Yes, both corporations and corporate officers should be liable forsuch criminal acts. Corporations have an ethical obligation toproduce products that do not cause harm to the consumers. Corporateofficers, on the other hand, have a duty of ensuring that everyproduct released into the market is safe for consumption(Marson&amp Ferris, 2015).

QE.One of the criminal acts by Funny Face is the production of a productusing ingredients not approved by the required legislation. Thislater caused damage to Mr. Margolin ‘s face.

QF. Since a crime was executed through using the non- FDA approvedingredients, according to criminal law this was a punishable act(Marson &amp Ferris, 2015). It was Chris’s aimed to increases thecompany’s profit margin by substituting PYR for the company’soriginal formula.

QG.The ethical decision making according to the WPH process would be asfollows W stands for Who, including the stakeholders such asinvestors, consumers, employees and the owners of the company. Pstands for Purpose, which incorporate the efficiency, justice,values, security and freedom of the consumers and sellers (Marson &ampFerris, 2015). Lastly, H stands for the How, which are explained bythe guidelines public disclosure and the Golden Rule. From the abovediscussion, the ethical issue in the above case would be providingfalse information which misleads the consumer. The company failed todisclose that PYR was added as an ingredient and this affected one oftheir customers.


Jones,L. (2015). Introductionto business law.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Marson,J., &amp Ferris, K. (2015). Businesslaw.Oxford: Oxford University Press.