Academic Integrity: tutoring, explanations, and feedback — we don’t complete graded work or submit on a student’s behalf.

BUSINESS LAW 1. Form an opinion about the contemporary relevance of this ruling.

ID: 1115665 • Letter: B

Question

BUSINESS LAW
1. Form an opinion about the contemporary relevance of this ruling. Given the widespread and significant changes in U.S. society and the world over the past 150 years, what is the justification for consideration of such an old case? How does this type of process aid our legal system? How might it detract from the reasonableness of modern deliberations?

2. Consider the actions of Fox, both leading up to and through the course of the legal dispute. From an ethical standpoint, which stakeholders was Fox considering? What values was he attempting to uphold?

Explanation / Answer

Ansss....
Q1). This more than 150 year old case does not hold any value and should not be considered for any justification or reference in today’s society.
No court shall honor or take for consideration a verbal promise without any witness.
Moreover it is Holly who has betrayed Lawrence, as she was indebted to Lawrence and had given a promise to Lawrence that she will repay tomorrow. She, knowing well that this $300 was not hers and actually belonged to Lawrence she could have very well returned the money to Lawrence and further introduced Fax to Lawrence for his request of loan.
It would have been upto Lawrence whether to loan the money to Fax or not, because he might have some other binding requirement of this money for some other purpose.
I am not trying, to justify Fax’s actions, he anyway has broken the promise, but in the court today, he (Fax) will not be considered as a defaulter for Lawrence and Lawrence stands a better chance to win the case of default against Holly than against Fax.
Q2). Fax, in my opinion defaulted in returning the money to Lawrence but behaved unethically once the suit was filed against him. He wanted to take advantage of the situation that he does not have any privity with Lawrence and court will not rule in favor of Lawrence. He was not upholding any values and was not ethical at all in his behavior.