Unit 3 homework - unit 3 PDF

Preview

Summary

unit 3...

Description

Unit 3: homework Junfang Duan Park university MBA 524

1. Chapter 7 - Questions 3 First passed in 1977, the FCPA is the result of an investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that uncovered questioned foreign payments by large stock issuers who were based in the United States.(Jennings, 2018) FCPA applies to business concerns that have their principal offices in the United. According to the textbook(Jennings, 2018) , we learn that “the FCPA prohibits making, authorizing, or promising payment payments or gifts of money or anything of value to government and NGO officials with the intent of corrupt for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for or with or directing business. Obviously, we need to pay attention to several aspects. First, the behavior of enterprises should be done by domestic enterprises in the United States. In this case, the company implemented is an overseas subsidiary. Secondly, in terms of behavior, donations are not to government and NGO officials. Finally, the company followed the normal commercial operations of overseas countries. Therefore, the behavior of the company's subsidiaries does not constitute a violation of FCPA regulations. In fact, the court also ruled in this way. 2. Chapter7-Question 7 German law will apply. We learn from the case that “Smith & Smith, a U.S. computer firm, contracted to install a computer system for Volkswagen in the company’s headquarters in Berlin, Germany.” And we also know that “the contract had no provision on choice of law.” According to the textbook, we learn that “the rules on conflicts of law in international transactions are as follows:(1) If the parties choose which law applies, that law will apply, and (2) if no provision is made, the law of the country where the contract is performed will be used”. (Jennings, 2018) Here, the contract is performed in Berlin, so the Germany law will apply. 3. Chapter7-Question10 According to the theory of sovereign immunity (Jennings 2018), I think the court should dismiss Kuwait from the lawsuit in this case. According to the court ruling(1993), we know that “resolving all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor, the Court finds that the alleged actions of Al-Uneizi were not within the scope of his employment. Guzel has failed to demonstrate that AlUneizi's actions met either prong of the District of Columbia's two-step respondeat superior liability test. Although Al-Uneizi's duties likely included the responsibility of interacting with hotel employees, the assault does not in any way further the State of Kuwait's interests. Nor could Kuwait have foreseen that an assault would occur any more than any employer whose employees come into contact with other persons. To conclude otherwise would effectively eviscerate the current test. This being the case, the Court must dismiss Kuwait from this proceeding for lack of jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.” 4 Chapter7-Question 5

For these contractors, I will recommend that they protect their legal rights in accordance with the constitutional amendments, apply for a Search warrant, conduct an investigation on the scene, and apply for a hearing to confirm their responsibility in the accident. When employees are performing their job duties, employers are legally responsible for their actions. And if employees fail to perform their job duties in the work, the legal responsibility should not be borne by the employer. The key here is that whether an employee is an illegal activity is necessarily related to his job responsibilities.

5. Chapter8- Brief Case 8.1 (1) What problem did the FDA find in the Acme warehouses, and over what period? The problem that the FDA found was that the company's food was infested by rodents in the warehouse. The problem occurred from 1970 to 1972. (2) Was Mr. Park warned about the problem? What action did he take? Yes, he was. After Mr. Park received the letter, he met with the vice president for legal affairs for Acme and was assured that he was “ investigating the situation immediately and would be taking corrective action.” (3) What standard of liability did the instruction given by the judge impose? The standard of liability is “the individual is or could be liable under the statute even if he did not consciously do wrong.” Obviously, the judge believed that Mr. Park, as the person in charge of the company, was legally responsible for all the actions of the company, although he was not guilty.

References: Jennings, Marianne M. (2018). Business: It's Legal, Ethical and Global Environment (11thed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning Lamb v. Phillip Morris, Inc. retrieved from: https://casetext.com/case/lamb-v-phillip-morris-inc Guzel v. State of Kuwait, 818 F. Supp. 6 (D.D.C. 1993). Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/818/6/1491529/

People v Lattarulo. Retrieved from: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/other-courts/2009/2009-29395.html...