Sun, Jan
0 New Articles

Business Ethics 2016 - Case Study Guides (4) - Judicial, Alternative, and E-Dispute Resolution

Business Ethics 2016


Case study guides and online resources (2016)





Chapter 4

Judicial, Alternative, and E-Dispute Resolution

  1. Answers to Critical Legal Thinking Cases


4.1   Summary Judgment

No, the defendants’ motions for summary judgment should not be granted. The U.S. district court found that substantial issues of fact needed to be decided at trial, which included whether the butter popcorn flavoring made by the defendants was dangerous, and if so the extent of the danger caused to someone who smelled and ate microwave popcorn, the amount of popcorn flavorings eaten by Deborah that was produced by each of the three defendants—Chr. Hansen, Inc., Symrise, Inc., and Firmenich, Inc.—and, if liability was found, what damages should be awarded and to what degree would each defendant be responsible. The court stated, “I find that the information and circumstances generate genuine issues of material fact as to whether defendants knew or had reason to know that their butter flavorings posed a potential risk, at some level, to consumers, thus triggering the necessity for a warning.” The U.S. district court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on failure to warn claims, thus permitting the case to go to trial. Daughetee v. Chr. Hansen, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. Lexis 50804 (United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, 2013)


4.2   Service of Process

No, plaintiff Jon Summervold did not properly serve defendant Wal-Mart, Inc. South Dakota law requires that service of process on a corporate defendant be made on the president, officer, director, or registered agent of a defendant corporation. Here, plaintiff served a nonofficer employee of Walmart, the assistant manager of the apparel department of the Walmart store in Aberdeen, South Dakota. Based on the fact that the president, directors, or officers of Wal-Mart, Inc. were not located in South Dakota at the time of the plaintiff’s lawsuit, the plaintiff should have had the process server serve the registered agent the service of process. Because the plaintiff had failed to comply with South Dakota’s applicable service of process statute, the court held that the service of process was invalid. Because the three year statute of limitations had run out on the plaintiff’s claim, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s lawsuit against Walmart. The judge stated “It is a most unpleasant task for any judge to dismiss a case at this stage.”  Sommervold v. Wal-Mart, Inc., 709 F.3d 1234, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 4972 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2013)


4.3   Summary Judgment


Yes, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. should be granted summary judgment. Summary judgment can be granted by a court where there is no dispute as to the material facts of the case. Here, the court of appeals held that there were no issues of material fact that needed to be heard by a jury and that the judge could therefore make a decision in this case. The court held that Walmart did not provide a dangerous display and that the four corners of the display were clearing marked with “Watch Step” warning signs. The court stated that Walmart did not instruct the plaintiff to pick up her watermelon and take several steps around the display with it. The court noted that the safer option was for her to have pushed her shopping cart close to the display and then to have scooped the watermelon into her cart. This option would not have required her to take any steps, thus avoiding the unfortunate incident. The court rejected the contention that Walmart “created a trap” for the plaintiff. Based on the undisputed facts of the case, the court granted summary judgment to Walmart. Primrose v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 127 So.3d 13, 2013 La. App. Lexis 1985 (Court of Appeals of Louisiana, 2013)



4.4   Class Certification

Yes, the class should be certified. The homeowners who have installed the Pex home plumbing system manufactured by Zurn Pex, Inc. and Zurn Industries, Inc. (Zurn) allege that the system has a crucial defect in that the brass fitting and crimp that joins the Pex tubing together is defective because it corrodes over time. Many homeowners have experienced water damage because of the corrosion; other homeowners who have installed the Pex system have not yet experienced water leakage but are still covered by the 25-year warranty on the Pex plumbing system. Homeowners in Minnesota who have installed Zurn Pex plumbing, whether they have experienced water damage or not, seek class certification to bring a class action against Zurn to have Zurn repair or replace Pex plumbing systems according to the warranty. The U.S. district court noted that the class is readily identifiable, the Pex product that is claimed to be defective is the same product that has been installed in all of the covered homes, the defendants are easily identifiable, and all of the homes are covered by a similar warranty. Therefore, the U.S. district court certified the following class: “All persons and entities that own a structure located within the State of Minnesota that contains a Zurn Pex plumbing system with Zurn brass crimp fittings.” The U.S. court of appeals affirmed the class certification. In re Zurn Pex Plumbing Products Liability Litigation, 644 F.3d 604, 2011 U.S. App. Lexis 13663 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2011)


4.5   Summary Judgment

No, the court must not grant defendant Bad Boy Enterprises’ motion for summary judgment. The injured plaintiff Elle Silver has raised substantial factual issues that a court cannot address on a motion for summary judgment. Based on the alleged facts of the case, there remains substantial issues which must be decided by the jury, including making factual findings as to the safety of the Bad Boy buggy involved, whether it had an acceleration problem, it crashworthiness, the testimony to be given by expert witnesses at the trial, and further factual determinations. The U.S. district court held that there were genuine factual disputes regarding Elle Silver’s claims against Bad Boy Enterprises LLC (BBE) that can only be decided by a jury and not by a court at this time. The court found that legitimate and genuine factual disputes remained regarding the plaintiff’s lawsuit against the defendant. The court denied BBE’s motion for summary judgment, thereby allowing the case to go to trial in front of a jury. Silver v. Bad Boy Enterprises, 2013 U.S. District Lexis 117562 (United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, 2013)


4.6   Summary Judgment

No, the court did not grant Pathmark’s motion for summary judgment. The court held that there were material and genuine issues of fact to be decided by a jury and affirmed the motion court’s denial of Pathmark’s motion for summary judgment. The court noted that the plaintiff alleged that she tripped over cases of soda that were stacked on the floor of defendant’s supermarket. It appears that at the time of the accident, the supermarket’s shelves, in accordance with usual practice, were being “packed out” with soda by an employee of either defendant bottling company or defendant soda distributor. The supermarket moved for summary judgment, contending that it did not create the alleged dangerous condition and that the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, to the effect that she walked to the soda aisle immediately after entering the store and did not see any soda on the floor before falling, shows that she cannot establish how long the soda had been on the floor before she fell. The appellate court found that the motion court correctly held that such testimony does not establish, prima facie, the supermarket’s lack of prior actual or constructive notice of the soda on the floor. The appellate court held that there were material and genuine issues of fact that must be decided by a jury and upheld the motion court’s denial of summary judgment to the defendant. Toote v. Canada Dry Bottling Company of New York, Inc. and Pathmark Stores, Inc., 7 A.D.3d 251, 776 N.Y.S.2d 42, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. Lexis 6470 (Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, 2004)




VII. Answers to Ethics Cases


4.7   Ethics Case

Yes, the issuance of a default judgment against the defendants is warranted in the case. BMW North America, LLC and Rolls-Royce Motor Cars NA, LLC and their parent and affiliate companies (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit in U.S. district court for trademark infringement against the corporate defendants, DinoDirect Corporation, DinoDirect China Ltd., and B2CForce International Corporation, and the individual defendant Kevin Feng, for selling counterfeit goods bearing the trademark names “BMW” and “Rolls-Royce.”  The plaintiffs properly served these defendants with the complaint against them. The defendants replied to the court with many emails but failed to appear in court or to file an answer to the complaint filed against them. After giving the defendants ample opportunities to appear and file an answer, the court issued a default judgment against the defendants holding them liable for trademark infringement. In the default judgment, the court permanently enjoined the defendants from engaging in similar trademark infringement in the future, issued an order for the destruction of any counterfeit goods in the possession of the defendants, and awarded the plaintiffs $1.5 million against the defendants for willful trademark infringement.

      Selling counterfeit goods bearing valid trademarks of other companies is unethical behavior. Here, the brand names BMW and Rolls-Royce are well recognized in the United States and around the world as being those of companies producing luxury automobiles and other products. The defendants were trying to make illegal profits by selling counterfeit goods bearing these trademarks. Trademark owners lose hundreds of millions of dollars each year from counterfeiters illegally selling knock-off s bearing their trademarks. BMW of North America v. Dinodirect Corporation, 2012 U.S. Dist. Lexis 170667 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California, 2012)


4.8   Ethics Case

No, the federal court should not vacate the arbitrator’s award. The agreement signed between Johnson Controls, Inc. and Edman Controls, Inc. gave Edman the exclusive rights to sell Johnson products in Panama. The agreement stipulated that any dispute arising from the parties’ arrangement would be resolved through arbitration using Wisconsin law. The court upheld the arbitrator’s finding that Johnson breached the agreement by attempting to sell its products directly to Panamanian developers, circumventing Edman. The U.S. district court upheld the arbitrator’s decision, as did the U.S. court of appeals. The court of appeals held that the parties had entered into a binding arbitration agreement and that the dispute between the parties had been properly decided by the arbitrator. The court noted “Attempts to obtain judicial review of an arbitrator’s decision undermine the integrity of the arbitral process.” The district court and court of appeals affirmed the arbitrator’s decision that Johnson had breached its contract with Edman and upheld the arbitrator’s award $733,341 in lost profits and damages, $252,127 in attorney’s fees, $39,958 in costs, and $23,042 in prejudgment interest against Johnson.

      Johnson acted unethically in two regards in this case. First, Johnson breached its agreement with Edman by directly competing with Edman in the Panama building market, violating the express terms of their agreement. Concerning this, the court of appeals stated, “Johnson breached the agreement, circumventing Edman. There was nothing subtle about this.” The second way Johnson acted unethically was by trying to avoid the arbitrator’s decision and award. In regards to Johnson’s attempt to avoid the arbitrator’s award by appealing to the courts, the court of appeals noted “Although arbitration is supposed to be a procedure through which a dispute can be resolved privately, losers sometimes cannot resist the urge to try for a second bite at the apple. That is what has happened here.” Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Edman Controls, Inc., 712 F.3d 1021, 2013 U.S. App. Lexis 5583 (United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 2013)






Free Business Ethics Resources

1. See full list of videos: 

Link 1 - Youtube channel www.youtube.com/ecomftu2012

Link 2 - Youtube channel 

2. Free Business Ethics - 2016 Ebooks (free download)

Legal Environment of Business: Online Commerce, Ethics, and Global Issues, 8th Edition, 2016, Henry R. Cheeseman

REVEL for Ethics and the Conduct of Business -- Access Card, 8th Edition, 2016, John R Boatright, Jeffery D. Smith

Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 7th Edition, 2012, Manuel G. Velasquez, Santa Clara University


3. Link to power point slides (Free Download)

REVEL for Ethics and the Conduct of Business -- Access Card, 8th Edition, 2016, John R Boatright, Jeffery D. Smith


Legal Environment of Business: Online Commerce, Ethics, and Global Issues, 8th Edition, 2016, Henry R. Cheeseman


Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 7th Edition, 2012, Manuel G. Velasquez, Santa Clara University

4. Test Bank - Free download

Legal Environment of Business: Online Commerce, Ethics, and Global Issues, 8th Edition, 2016, Henry R. Cheeseman

Link - Test bank - free download 

REVEL for Ethics and the Conduct of Business -- Access Card, 8th Edition, 2016, John R Boatright, Jeffery D. Smith

Link - Test bank - free download


For Test Bankz, Quiz Answers and Case study Guides, email to: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.


Good Luck and Success, Enjoy Your Study !






Business Ethics 2016, Lecture, Video, Case Study Guides and Quiz, Test Bank, Free Download
Revel for Ethics and the Conduct of Business, 8th Edition, 2016, John R Boatright, Jeffery D. Smith
Legal Environment of Business: Online Commerce, Ethics, and Global Issues, 8th Edition, 2016, Henry R. Cheeseman
Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases, 7th Edition, 2012, Manuel G. Velasquez, Santa Clara University

1. Ethics in the World of Business
2. Ethical Decision Making
3. Ethical Theories
4. Whistle-Blowing
5. Business Information and Conflict of Interest
6. Privacy
7. Discrimination and Affirmative Action
8. Employment Rights
9. Health and Safety
10. Marketing and Advertising
11. Ethics in Finance
12. Corporate Social Responsibility
13. Governance, Accountability, and Compliance
14. International Business Ethics
Part I: Legal and Ethical Environment

1. Legal Heritage and the Digital Age
2. Ethics and Social Responsibility of Business
3. Courts, Jurisdiction, and Administrative Law
4. Judicial, Alternative, and E-Dispute Resolution

Part II: Constitution and Public Law
5. Constitutional Law for Business and E-Commerce
6. Torts and Strict Liability
7. Criminal Law and Cyber Crimes
8. Intellectual Property and Cyber Piracy

Part III: Contracts, Commercial Law, and E-Commerce
9. Formation and Requirements of Contracts
10. Performance and Breach of Contracts
11. Digital Law and E-Commerce
12. UCC Sales Contracts, Leases, and Warranties
13. Credit, Secured Transactions, and Bankruptcy

Part IV: Business Organizations, Corporate Governance, and Investor Protection
14. Small Business, General Partnerships, and Limited Partnerships
15. Limited Liability Companies, Limited Liability Partnerships, and Special Forms of Business
16. Corporations and Corporate Governance
17. Investor Protection and E-Securities Transactions

Part V: Agency, Employment, and Labor Law
18. Agency Law
19. Equal Opportunity in Employment
20. Employment Law and Worker Protection
21. Labor Law and Immigration Law

Part VI: Government Regulation
22. Antitrust Law and Unfair Trade Practices
23. Consumer Protection
24. Environmental Protection
25. Real Property and Land Use Regulation

Part VII: Global Environment
26. International and World Trade Law

Part VIII: Accounting Profession
27. Accountants’ Duties and Liability
PART ONE Basic Principles

Chapter 1 Ethics and Business
1.1 The Nature of Business Ethics
ON THE EDGE: Was National Semiconductor Morally Responsible?
1.2 Ethical Issues in Business
ON THE EDGE: A Traditional Business
1.3 Moral Responsibility and Blame
ON THE EDGE: WorldCom’s Whistleblower
ON THE EDGE: Gun Manufacturers and Responsibility
Slavery in the Chocolate Industry
Aaron Beam and the HealthSouth Fraud

Chapter 2 Ethical Principles in Business
2.1 Utilitarianism: Weighing Social Costs and Benefits
2.2 Rights and Duties
ON THE EDGE: Should Companies Dump Their Wastes In Poor Countries?
ON THE EDGE: Working for Eli Lilly & Company
ON THE EDGE: Conflict Diamonds
ON THE EDGE: ExxonMobil, Amerada Hess, and Marathon Oil in Equatorial Guinea
Traidos Bank and Roche’s Drug Trials in China

PART TWO The Market and Business

Chapter 3 The Business System: Government, Markets, and International Trade
3.1 Free Markets and Rights: John Locke
3.2 Free Markets and Utility: Adam Smith
3.3 Free Trade and Utility: David Ricardo
3.4 Marx and Justice: Criticizing Markets and Free Trade
ON THE EDGE: Commodification or How Free Should Free Markets Be?
ON THE EDGE: Marx’s Children
3.5 Conclusion: The Mixed Economy, the New Property, and the End of Marxism
ON THE EDGE: Napster’s Lost Revolution
ON THE EDGE: Brian’s Franchise
The GM Bailout Accolade versus Sega

Chapter 4 Ethics in the Marketplace
4.1 Perfect Competition
4.2 Monopoly Competition
ON THE EDGE: Drug Company Monopolies and Profits
4.3 Oligopolistic Competition
4.4 Oligopolies and Public Policy
ON THE EDGE: Fixing the Computer Memory Market
ON THE EDGE: Oracle and Peoplesoft
Intel’s “Rebates” and Other Ways It “Helped” Customers
Archer Daniels Midland and the Friendly Competitors

PART THREE Business and Its External Exchanges: Ecology and Consumers

Chapter 5 Ethics and the Environment
5.1 The Dimensions of Pollution and Resource Depletion
5.2 The Ethics of Pollution Control
5.3 The Ethics of Conserving Depletable Resources
ON THE EDGE: Ford’s Toxic Wastes
ON THE EDGE: The Auto Companies in China
ON THE EDGE: Exporting Poison
The Ok Tedi Copper Mine
Gas or Grouse?

Chapter 6 The Ethics of Consumer Production and Marketing
6.1 Markets and Consumer Protection
6.2 The Contract View of Business Firm’s Duties to Consumers
6.3 The Due Care Theory
ON THE EDGE: The Tobacco Companies and Product Safety
6.4 The Social Costs View of the Manufacturer’s Duties
ON THE EDGE: Selling Personalized Genetics
6.5 Advertising Ethics
ON THE EDGE: Advertising Death to Kids?
ON THE EDGE: New Balance and the “Made in USA” Label
6.6 Consumer Privacy
Becton Dickinson and Needle Sticks
Reducing Debts at Credit Solutions of America

PART FOUR Business and Its Internal Constituencies

Chapter 7 The Ethics of Job Discrimination
7.1 Job Discrimination: Its Nature
ON THE EDGE: Helping Patients at Plainfield Healthcare Center
7.2 Discrimination: Its Extent
7.4 Affirmative Action
ON THE EDGE: Driving for Old Dominion
ON THE EDGE: Peter Oiler and Winn-Dixie Stores
Should Kroger pay now for what a Ralphs’ Employee did in the Past
Wal-Mart’s Women

Chapter 8 Ethics and the Employee
8.1 The Rational Organization
8.2 The Political Organization
8.3 The Caring Organization
ON THE EDGE: HP’s Secrets and Oracle’s New Hire
ON THE EDGE: Insider Trading or: What Are Friends For?
ON THE EDGE: Delivering Pizza
ON THE EDGE: Sergeant Quon’s Text Messages
ON THE EDGE: Employment at Will at Howmet Corporation?
Death at Massey Energy Company
Who Should Pay?
key words
Ethical Decision Making,
Ethical Theories,
Conflict of Interest,
Discrimination, Affirmative Action,
Employment Rights,
Health and Safety,
Ethics in Finance,
Corporate Social Responsibility,
Governance, Accountability, Compliance,
International Business Ethics,

MBA Simulation Games 2017 - Excel file for Sales Forecast








Free Personal Support for





MBA Simulation Games 2018 - Ebook - All Winning Guides and Tips





Update 2018

New Stratetgies

Download here - LINK

And Free Personal Support

for Round 1 and Round 2