- Application Of Rules Of Jurisdiction To The Facts Of This Case And The Appropriate Jurisdiction(S) For Margolin’s Lawsuit Against Funny Face And Novelty Now
Three critical considerations must be regarded to determine the most suitable court to handle this lawsuit. The first aspect is personal jurisdiction, which helps to determine if the particular court possesses the legal power over the individual being litigated, as implied by Klerman (2014). In this case, Funny Face’s partners, namely, Matt, Ian, and Chris, are being sued by Donald Margolin, whose face was damaged after using a product made by the trio. Donald is registering the case in New York. If the trio is found to have visited New York or conducted business in the state, personal jurisdiction would be eligible. Thus, the trio would have to visit New York to defend their case. For this situation, personal jurisdiction is not applicable against the trio because they reside in California and operate with the Florida-based Novelty Now Inc. Personal jurisdiction is not applicable in this case because the trio do not live in New York and have never visited or engaged in any kind of business in the city. Besides not engaging in any business in New York, no one from the city has bought Funny Face’s products or engaged with Novelty Now Inc. over the Internet, which negates the applicability of the long-arm statute.
The other essential consideration is subject matter jurisdiction, which holds that federal or state courts can litigate specific kinds of cases, implying that they relate to the nature of a particular subject matter or claim, as intimated by Jurkowski (2017). For example, federal jurisdiction hears cases concerning copyright claims and bankruptcy, while state jurisdiction deals with cases whose conditions do not suffice the obligations of federal jurisdiction. Since this case does not involve trademark or bankruptcy, or copyright issues, the case can be heard in a state and not federal jurisdiction. The third aspect is minimum contact, which determines if a court in a particular state can pronounce personal jurisdiction over another state’s defendant (Berlik, 2014). In this case, the court must ascertain that a defendant has a particular presence level in a given geographical region or a state in which the court intends to serve the respondent.
- Analysis Of The Advantages And Disadvantages Of Two Types Of ADR Appropriate For This Case
A suitable approach to resolve this case is the Alternative dispute Resolution (ADR). This approach entails solving disputes using different approaches, such as arbitration, private trials, mediation, neutral case assessments, or negotiation. ADR is often cheaper and speedier than litigation. In this case, the two most relevant ADR approaches to use would be mediation and arbitration. Mediation entails resolving a case in a way that benefits the involved parties. In mediation, the process starts when the parties choose a mediator and the relevant case information provided (Shonk, 2020). Each party gives their facts and convinces the mediator why they must win the case. The mediator explains all the terms governing the mediation process, including asserting that the case facts must remain private among the mediating parties. The clients’ representatives then meet with the pertinent attorneys, and the mediator listens to each case’s facts to ascertain the underlying problems contributing to the dispute.
Once the pertinent points are identified, the mediator then underscores the agreed-upon areas and reframes the contentious points. The mediator then works with the parties to compare the alternatives and fosters a productive conversation that ultimately yields an amenable agreement for all parties. The advantages of mediation include privacy about the disputed issue, speed, less litigation costs, and a mutually agreed-upon solution. The trio will save face because their faulty product and its severe consequences will not be revealed to the public. Some disadvantages include the likelihood of the stronger party influencing the lesser mediating party negatively and coercing a decision on them. It is also possible for the mediator to be biased, especially if the mediator is offended by the outcome of Margolin’s case after using the product.
However, in the trio’s case, they are better using arbitration because even the language on their website implies that arbitration is their chosen way of resolving a dispute. They trio seems to prefer this approach because of its advantages of being less costly and more efficient, besides allowing the concerned parties to exercise more control in resolving the dispute. Further, the parties have the option to pick an arbiter specialized in resolving such disputes (Gilkis, 2017). Moreover, the arbiter can exercise flexibility when deciding a case, unlike a judge who must rely on precedents. In addition, Funny Face will not suffer negative publicity because the case will be resolved privately. A disadvantage of arbitration is that the arbiter’s decision is final and unquestionable, which risks leaving a party discontented with the final verdict.
- The Type Of ADR Each Party Would Prefer And Why
All the parties would all prefer arbitration as the first choice because funny Face lists it as the preferable approach to solve all problems. The plaintiff has a better chance with arbitration for him and his company to get compensated for damages. It is highly likely that the arbiter will award damages to the plaintiff and his company and Funny Face cannot seek and further assistance to negotiate or deny the damages awarded by the arbiter. The plaintiff would choose mediation as the second option because he would get damages and deny Novelty Now the chance to take control in the process of resolving the dispute.
- Application Of Concepts Of Criminal Law And Whether Or Not Corporations And/Or Corporate Officers May Be Held Liable For Criminal Acts.
As envisioned in common law, an entity without a ‘mind,’ such as a corporation, may not be regarded a criminal. The corporation fails to satisfy the mens rea requirement of a criminal having a guilty mind, as defined by FindLaw (2020). Nonetheless, courts are currently imposing liability on companies despite not meeting the mens rea condition because they deem corporate officers answerable for their personnel’s actions. Courts have realized that when employees engage in unlawful acts, there are instances of the company benefitting from the illegalities. As such, Ina, Matt and Chris could be held guilty of corporate crime, notwithstanding the extent to which they participated in the crime. Besides, any other party privy to the deal other than the three offenders could be held liable for the crime if the court establishes that they could have prevented the crime.
- Identification, Per The Classification Of Crimes In The Text, Of Any Potential Criminal Acts By Funny Face And/Or Novelty Now.
Fraud is the principal crime in this case. Fraud is characterized by the presence of several critical elements. Firstly, there must be a material dishonest misrepresentation made with the resolve to deceive. Secondly, a victim must be proved to have reasonably relied on the false misrepresentation and thirdly, the victim must have suffered provable damages as a result of their dependence on the deceptive claim (Mitchell, 2020). Hence, Novelty Law and Funny Face are criminally liable. Funny Face knowingly deceived customers about the quality of their products, despite knowing that the new substance they used for their product was not certified for quality. Novelty Now Inc. is also criminally liable because they willingly used the hazardous product, despite having the power to research on the suitability of the cheaper product. The implication is that Novelty Now Inc. participated in the deception to increase their profit margins.
- Application Of The Concepts Of Criminal Law And Discuss The Potential Criminal Liability Of Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, And Novelty Now
Chris must be held responsible for fraud because he gave the express authority to Novelty Now Inc. to use a low-grade, uncertified PYR emulsifier in Funny Face’s product. In issuing the order, Chris lied to Novelty Now Inc. and the customers about the product’s constituents and its overall quality. Besides, Chris violated the established consumer safety laws that protect a product’s end-users from harm. A manufacture has an obligation to uphold public safety and health when producing a product to be consumed by the public. Additionally, Chris is liable to paying damages to Mr. Margolin because of violating his duty of ensuring that the product user is protected, and for deceiving Margolin as a customer regarding the product’s safety. In addition, Funny Face should be held answerable because Chris was one of the directors implying that his actions also affect the liability of the other two directors and the company’s.
Moreover, Funny Face and Novelty Now Inc. must pay damages to Mr. Mandolin because of causing him physical and psychological harm after his face turned a lasting blue hue that affected his personal and business lives. Novelty Now Inc. should also be held criminally liable for the fraud that caused Mr. Margolin’s problems because they ignored their responsibility of ascertaining the quality of the product they were using, especially considering that it was cheaper. They should have exercised due diligence because they were in an active contract with funny Face, implying that the courts would deem any decision they made as mutually agreed upon. Novelty Now Inc. and Funny Face would likely be viewed as working in cahoots to sell hazardous products to augment their profit margins.
- Application Of At Least Three Guidelines Of Ethical Decision-Making To Evaluate Ethical Issues Within The Case Study
The WPH model is used in determining a suitable approach in responding to an ethical dilemma (Mitchell & Yordy, 2010). The W helps determine who a particular decision would affect, including the management, personnel, consumers and stakeholders. In this case, the decision to sell the low-quality product affected the Face Funny, Novelty Inc., their employees, and a customer, Mr. Margolin. Funny Face, under Chris’ direction, acted unethically because they knowingly endorsed the use of a faulty chemical. Novelty Inc.’s failure to ascertain the product’s quality implies that they did not mind making extra money at the expense of ascertaining customers’ safety. The P represents the purpose and values guiding the decision. Novelty Now Inc. and Chris decided to use a substandard product to increase their profits and disregarded the final product’s safety.
Novelty Now Inc. seemed intrigued by the prospect of making additional profits that they forgot their responsibility of assessing the new chemical’s quality. Ultimately, their greed resulted in the permanent damage of a customer’s face. The H denotes how an entity makes a business decision. Chris, Novelty Inc., and Funny Face ignored the values of honesty and integrity by failing to regard the customer’s wellbeing and knowingly using a risky product. Judging by the parameters of ethical decision making, their decision was entirely unethical because it was solely guided by making higher profits and ultimately, their integrity and credibility were affected significantly.
References
Berlik, L. (2014). To establish personal jurisdiction, minimum contacts must be with the forum state, not just its resident. https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/corporate/b/business/posts/to-establish-personal-jurisdiction-minimum-contacts-must-be-with-forum-state-not-just-its-resident
FindLaw. (2020). Mens Rea – a defendant’s mental state. https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-law-basics/mens-rea-a-defendant-s-mental-state.html
Gilkis, K.B. (2017). Alternative Dispute Resolution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/alternative_dispute_resolution
Jurkowski, S. (2017). Subject matter jurisdiction. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/subject_matter_jurisdiction
Klerman, D. (2014). Rethinking Personal Jurisdiction. Journal of Legal Analysis, Volume 6, Issue 2. 245–303, https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/lau007. https://academic.oup.com/jla/article/6/2/245/2937233
Mitchell,J.M. & Yordy, E.D. (2010). COVER it: a comprehensive framework for guiding students through ethical dilemmas. http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/LegEdDig/2010/39.html
Mitchell, R.D. (2020). What are the elements of common law fraud? https://www.mitchell-attorneys.com/common-law-fraud#:~:text=In%20the%20United%20States%2C%20common,by%20the%20person%20in%20the
Shonk, K. (2020). What is Alternative Dispute Resolution? https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dispute-resolution/what-is-alternative-dispute-resolution/