1. A. Is it ethical for the law to impose liability retroactively? B. Should gov
ID: 443125 • Letter: 1
Question
1. A. Is it ethical for the law to impose liability retroactively? B. Should government force a person to pay for doing something that was legal and carried no penalty at the time it was done? 2. You have learned what a contract is and the consequences for failing to live up to the provisions of a contract. The usual remedy for a breach of contract is money damages. a. But can money truly compensate the non-breaching party for all the losses suffered? b. How accurately can loss of potential profit be estimated? c. What about the stress and inconvenience caused the non-breaching party by the breach? d. Would this be difficult to measure in monetary terms? e. What about the example failing to live up to a promise sets? f. If an employee finds out that the company is manufacturing appliances with substandard parts so that the appliance will fail much sooner, does the employee have an ethical obligation to do anything? 3. Consider the ethical implications of a seller who decides to make his way. The less expensive way will shorten the life of the product. So, instead of giving a two-year written warranty that the seller has been giving, the seller no longer provides a warranty on the product. The seller custs costs, reduces the likelihood of returns and lawsuits because of breached warranty and is much happier. What about the customer.
Explanation / Answer
1.A.
In general it is not acceptable for a law to be imposed retroactively. Because if this is done then a person would be held liable for the acts committed in the past which were not an offence at that time but have become offence in the current scenario.
1.B.
In this case also the situation is same as in the case given above. This is not acceptable in general, but in some occasions the court after looking into the facts and circumstances may decide to pay compensation for the acts done in the past, which were legal and carried no penalty.
Again, this rule is in general not acceptable.
2.
a. Money cannot truly compensate the losses suffered by the non breaching party. Though there are several remedies available with the non breaching party and the non breaching party can either take the course of either going for damages in the form of monetary compensation or take the equitable course and ask for some other remedy.
b. The loss of potential profit can be estimated by using the fact that what benefits have been accrued by the non breaching party in case the contract would have been fullfilled. This can only be estimated and no exact figure could be obtained.
c. The stress and the inconvenience caused can also be asked to be paid in the form of damages by the breaching party to the non breaching party.
d. Yes, it would be difficult to measure the stress and inconvenience caused in monetary terms.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.