BUS-206 Discussion Week 1 PDF

Preview

Summary

Week 1 Discussion post for BUS-206, Business Law I....

Description

1-1 Discussion My name is Shauna, and I am in the process of finishing my Associate’s in Business Administration, then plan to continue on to my Bachelor’s next. I have worked in the nuclear industry since 2010 in a few different roles, but my career focus has been toward process improvement and cause analysis. I have always had an interest in law, but haven’t taken a business law class since high school. In my career, I work regularly with strict federal laws, codes, regulations and standards. We are required to maintain strict compliance, and document any deviations, whether need-based or error-based, as well as action plans to mitigate future noncompliance or impacts from those deviations. I think having a better understanding of business law will help me further understand how to ensure our contractors work to the applicable laws and regulations as required. CASE 7-2: United States of America v. Park (Kubasek, Browne, Herron, Dhooge & Baracs, 2017 p166): Yes, I do believe Parks should have been charged, since as the case study states, “Park conceded that his responsibility for the “entire operation” included warehouse sanitation” (Kubasek, et. al., 2017 p166) – therefore even if he was not directly running the warehouse, he was responsible to have measures in place which would ensure adequate cleanliness. Further, I believe he also deserved to be charged, based on his awareness of the conditions; “He admitted at trial that he had received a warning letter from the Food and Drug Administration about unsanitary conditions…” (Kubasek, et. al., 2017 p166). Park may not have intended to hurt anyone, however he acted in willful disregard of the warning of the warehouse’s sanitary issues. The court relied on the precedent set in the Dotterweich case associated with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 (Kubasek, et. al., 2017). In the Dotterweich case, the court determined “the only way in which a corporation can act is through the individuals who act on its behalf” (Kubasek, et. al., 2017 p166), and it is clear that Parks did not act lawfully in his role.

Cited Reference: Kubasek, N.K., Browne, N.M., Dhooge, L.J., Herron, D.J. & Barkacs, L.L. 2017. Dynamic Business Law Fourth Edition. New York, NY. McGraw Hill Education....