MID Term Exam Questions & Answers :
Question 1 : TCO B. Infuriated when Harry Reid is re-elected during the 2010 fall election, the Republicans in Congress decide to take matters into their own hands. In 2011, the House of Representatives passes a new “Freedom isn’t Free Act” that requires that anyone who wants to vote in the 2012 presidential election must prove that they paid at least $200 in federal income tax in the past year, including people aged 18 (who typically are deducted on their parents’ returns and do not pay income tax). Anyone who received the “earned income credit” is barred from voting unless they return the payment from the government. Proof of payment of the tax can be made by showing a copy of the prior year’s W2, a copy of the prior year’s tax return, or a signed statement from the IRS stating that the payment of more than $200 in federal income tax has been made. Citizens who do not pay taxes can still vote if they donate $200.00 to the federal government as voluntary income tax and get a statement from the IRS that they have done so. The law sunsets on December 31, 2012. List two bases under which someone impacted by this law could argue to have the law overturned.
Question 2 :
TCO F. When Vanna White sued Samsung for appropriation and under the Lanham Act, she won her case under the California common law right of publicity claim and under the Lanham Act. List the eight Sleekcraft factors that are required to prove a Lanham Act complaint.
Question 3 :
(TCO C) Bud Johnson owns a General Motors dealership in Pierre, South Dakota. At the request and expense of General Motors, Bud traveled to Phoenix, Arizona, for purposes of the demonstration of a new vehicle called the Roughrider, designed to compete against the current offering of SUVs. Bud went to the proving grounds in the desert around Phoenix and spent a day watching the vehicle demonstrations. Bud and other dealers drove the vehicles, and much dust resulted from their driving. A few weeks later, Bud became ill with flu-like symptoms. He was finally diagnosed as having coccidioidomycosis or “valley fever.” Valley fever is a disease well known to Arizona residents, and most have had it if they have lived there over 10 years. Newcomers are particularly vulnerable to the disease because the exposure to dust seems to build up immunity among the residents.
Question 4 :
TCO D: Barney and his 16-year-old son BamBam are riding in Fred’s car. Fred had taken some prescription medication that morning that stated on the bottle, “Warning, may cause drowsiness.” The truck in front of them suffers a blow-out, and swerves uncontrollably. The tire remnants fly into the road, Fred swerves and hits a car to his left. He avoids hitting the truck with the blow-out but suffers damage to the left side of his car. BamBam hits his head on the side of the car, getting a concussion and permanently losing the sight in his right eye. Fred has state law required auto insurance with the minimum policy limits.
Question 5 :
TCO I. Marianne Jennings wrote an article, “Why an International Code of Ethics would be good,” which was assigned to be read at the beginning of the course. As you have worked throughout this session, you should have considered this article and how it may or may not have impacted different situations in the world economic/business/legal/political environments. The essay you will write on the next question should show that you have read Marianne’s article and can apply her theories and thoughts from that article to the scenario provided. Feel free to rely on the information you know about the situations (if real) or analogize to another one, if you wish. Include in your answer at least two specific concepts from Marianne’s article, and apply those concepts to your reasoning in your answer. You will be graded on your knowledge of the article as well as the application of ethical theories to international situations.
1.TCO B. Infuriated when Harry Reid is re-elected during the 2010 fall election, the Republican National Committee decides to take matters into its own hands. In 2011, the House of Representatives passes a new “Freedom isn’t Free Act” that requires that anyone who wants to vote in the 2012 presidential election must prove that they paid at least $200 in federal income tax in the past year, including people aged 18 (who typically are deducted on their parents’ returns and do not pay income tax). Anyone who received the “earned income credit” is barred from voting unless they return the payment from the government. Proof of payment of the tax can be made by showing a copy of the prior year’s W2, a copy of the prior year’s tax return, or a signed statement from the IRS stating that the payment of more than $200 in federal income tax has been made. Citizens who do not pay taxes can still vote if they donate $200.00 to the federal government as voluntary income tax and get a statement from the IRS that they have done so. The law sunsets on December 31, 2012. List two bases under which someone impacted by this law could argue to have the law overturned. (Points : 15)
2.TCO F. In Midler v. Ford Motor Co., Bette Midler sued Ford for unauthorized appropriation. Explain what appropriation is. Tell me what type of civil claim appropriation is and what a person has to prove to win damages for it. (short answer only) (Points : 15)
3.(TCO C) One summer, David Baxter and his wife, Melissa, were on their new boat with another couple, tubing on the Mississippi river. David and the other couple had been drinking all day, “about seven or eight beers each and some Crown Royal,” although Melissa wasn’t drinking due to being pregnant. As he prepared to jump into the water to tube, David’s feet slipped out from under him, and he fell into the water, hitting the back of his head and neck on the ladder, knocking him out cold. He slipped under the water and drowned. The other members of the party didn’t notice his absence until a passing barge pilot got their attention. He had seen the entire thing through his binoculars; he had been watching Melissa and her friend Angela (who were in bathing suits). Despite an immediate search and rescue attempt by the coast guard, David was not saved. Melissa alleged that the surface of the boat floor where David was standing and preparing to jump into the water was unreasonably slippery. In fact, at issue in the case was the manufacturing process used in coating the flooring. Melissa (and her attorney) felt that a nonslip surface should have been placed on the floor of the boat. The safety manual that came with the boat included these clauses:
“CAUTION: Wet surfaces can be slippery. Passengers should wear adequate deck shoes while boarding and underway to avoid accidental slipping and injury.”
“CAUTION: Deck areas and swim platform are slippery when wet. Passengers must be careful when passing through companionway to prevent accidental slipping or tripping. Passengers should wear adequate deck shoes at all times to prevent accidental slipping. Passengers must stay off swim platform while underway to prevent falling overboard.”
No warnings existed, however, in view of the passengers on the boat.
(25 points) What potential legal theories of recovery can and should Melissa allege against the following parties (provide support for your answer)?
I. The boat manufacturer
II. The boat seller
III. The coast guard
(15 points) What legal theories of defense can and should each of the above three parties use? Provide support for your answer. (Points : 40)
4.TCO D: (This is a fictional scenario.) Billy Joel decided he wanted to learn to play the violin for his next set of concerts. He called a violin salesman in New York and asked if he had any for sale. The salesman stated he had a Stradivarius and a Guarnerius (two famous brands of violins) and offered to sell them to Billy for $80,000 and $24,000, respectively. Billy agreed, over the phone, to purchase the violins from the salesman and told him he would be in town the next week to pick them up.
Billy didn’t show up for two months, and when he entered the store, the salesman wasn’t there. His wife, Margaret, was there in the store, however, and she had full knowledge of the deal cut between her husband and Billy. (She’d heard her husband whining, complaining, and wailing about Billy not showing up for the last 2 months and she was really sick of hearing about it.)
Billy asked to see the violins, and Margaret showed him both of them. Billy stated he would agree to pay $65,000 for both of them, and Margaret, knowing that they were counterfeits and only worth $2,000 AND realizing that their house was about to go into foreclosure, agreed to the reduction in price and sold Billy the two violins for $65,000. She gave him a bill of sale that she wrote out on a note pad on the counter, which said, “Paid in full. Strativarus and Granruius violans. $65,000. Chk # 4301 Billy Joel. Salesperson: Margaret Madoff.” The notepad was one she had brought home from their last vacation to Las Vegas and was from The Flamingo hotel there. Billy took home the violins and proceeded to learn to play, albeit very poorly.
Meanwhile, the salesman discovers that Margaret sold the violins for less than he had bargained for. He sues Billy Joel for the $39,000 difference, stating that Margaret was not an employee of the store and had no authority to change the deal he and Billy had made.
During the pendency of the suit, and after his next concert, the newspapers stated, “Billy Joel should give up playing the violin! He stinks!” Billy takes his violins to a music store to sell them and discovers they are only worth $2,000 and that they are not Stradivarius and Guarnerius violins but are instead counterfeits.
He wants to countersue the salesman and asks you on what basis can he do so. Using contract, agency, and any other legal concepts you have learned this session, on what bases can Billy sue the salesman and his wife? What defenses will they have? Do you think Billy can recover? Further, will Margaret’s husband (his name is Bernard) be able to collect against Billy for the difference in price from the original deal? Explain your answer fully as to the why’s, wherefore’s, and why not’s for both parties. Use bullet points and “issue spotting” to assist you in your answer.
(Points : 40)
5.TCO I. Marianne Jennings wrote an article, “Why an International Code of Ethics would be good,” which was assigned to be read at the beginning of the course. As you have worked throughout this session, you should have considered this article and how it may or may not have impacted different situations in the world economic/business/legal/political environments. The essay you will write on the next question should show that you have read Marianne’s article and can apply her theories and thoughts from that article to the scenario provided. Feel free to rely on the information you know about the situations (if real) or analogize to another one, if you wish. Include in your answer at least two specific concepts from Marianne’s article, and apply those concepts to your reasoning in your answer. You will be graded on your knowledge of the article as well as the application of ethical theories to international situations.
In 200910, Toyota experienced a troubling “gas pedal” sticking issue, which impacted its global reputation and income and caused it to stagger in its, until then, position as one of the top, world-wide, respected, and best-selling car companies on the globe. Over the first few months of the crisis, Toyota waffled on its message to its customers, both denying and then accepting responsibility for the issue. Research into the situation shows that the problem had been brought to its attention for a long time and either ignored, disbelieved, or grudgingly accepted, depending on the time and place of the issue.
For this question, think about the facts of the Toyota recall and its impact on Toyota car owners worldwide, including the value (or loss thereof) of customer’s trade-ins, car dealer’s business valuation losses, loss in used car sales to used car dealers and owners, and also the loss of lives and injuries to those who were grossly impacted by the gas pedal issue. Also, think about the cost to stockholders and the other stakeholders involved. Now think about Marianne Jenning’s international code of ethics article. Would an international code of ethics have impacted how this entire Toyota travesty played out in the real world? What if the “world of business” had agreed to one? Would Toyota have been somehow required to behave differently, which would have protected so many stakeholders from losses and people from injury? Or, would nothing really have changed? Feel free to argue both sides of this, and include in your answer, please, at least two or three things you would have included (or Marianne Jennings recommended to include) in an international code of ethics and how that would (or wouldn’t) really have impacted the Toyota crisis. Evaluate, analyze, and synthesize your answer using everything you have learned this session about ethics, law, politics, and business.
(Points : 40)
6.TCO A. Use the fact pattern you received in the above Marianne Jennings “International Code of Ethics” question to answer this question. Analyze and propose a solution to the problem you received above using the Laura Nash method. Show the steps, apply the facts, and provide a proposed solution you would suggest. (Points : 40)