Business Law Case Study Report - Legal System & Contracts

This document presents an analysis of three case studies related to business law. The first case study examines the U.S. legal system, criminal law, and ethical considerations within a business context. It explores issues of jurisdiction, corporate responsibility, and potential criminal fraud. The second case study focuses on contract law and landlord-tenant law, analyzing the elements of a contract, promissory estoppel, and the rights and obligations of parties involved in a rental agreement. The third case study delves into business organizations, comparing the advantages and disadvantages of sole proprietorships and partnerships, specifically limited liability partnerships, and their implications for liability and financial considerations. The analysis draws upon relevant legal concepts and principles to provide a comprehensive understanding of the scenarios.

Running head: TITLE OF PAPER IN CAPS 1
Paper Title Capitalized and Centered
Name of Student
Institution Affiliation

TITLE OF PAPER IN CAPS 2
Case Study One:
The United States federal judicial structure is exclusively jurisdictive to the admiralty,
bankruptcies, federal felony prosecutions, state-to-country trials, US lawsuits and statutory
copyright, patent, and trademark litigation. This case does not meet the particular jurisdiction
requirements of the governmental structures. However, a variety of citizenship cases apply.
Two conditions will be followed in situations of integration in citizenship. The first is that the
candidates are not the same as the respondent, and the second is that the question concerns
more than $75,000 (Bar-Gill et al., 2019).
In the case of alternative dispute resolution, a warning on the website is used,
claiming that "without Chris and Ian's every person purchasing their goods will take their
goods to trial." Although the case has not been explicitly referred to as alternative dispute
settlement, one may contend that this choice is the rational path, because the company's
warning is not rejected. In using the ADR, all the parties concerned could negotiate an
agreement or mediation more quickly than waiting for a federal court to consider the dispute.
There are many forms of ADR to be weighed before choosing to move the case to
ADR. Negotiating, a kind of informal negotiating technique is the most uncomplicated ADR
process. Meditation is an expansion of denials in which the participants choose a neutral
mediator to promote dialogue and to recommend a remedy to the conflict. If not, the parties
may select the most common uses of the process of arbitration by settling a dispute outside
the courts through an impartial third party (Tone, 2018). Negation and consultation are often
done informally and encourage the participants generally to establish a working partnership
when sharing in innovative negotiation proposals. Novelty Now and Funny Face may favor
discussions or mediation because it will relieve their burdens.

TITLE OF PAPER IN CAPS 3
The funders of Funny Faces and Novelty Now Inc. are not immune from punitive
prosecution, because we discuss this situation in more depth. In an ethical corporate officer
theory, only a director or officer who has not made, guided, or 'now' a specific criminal
offense may be found to be a criminal defendant by a judge. Funny Face Creator Chris
directed the replacement of A &: in the Funny Face recipe by Novelty Now Inc., given the
fact that the FDA has not accepted this chemical. Funny Face may be sued for theft as it
covers for the products. Criminal fraud is described as deliberate frustration that harms
others. It has been founded in SCOTUS in many instances where they are generally referred
to as 'property law.' In the United States, V. Park and the United States, V. Iverson, SCOTUS
ruled where corporate owners should be kept responsible for offenses resulting from the
inability to accept responsibilities.
The stakeholders here are everyone from the owners to end consumers of the drug,
including Mr. Margolin. The end- would have been the key stakeholder in the opinions of
drug designers when choosing the chemicals to use or what chemicals to replace. In the final
review, it is the end-user or customer that is influenced most by a product improvement or
lack of this. The measure has been made to cut prices in the case of Funny Face (Kubasek et
al., 2016). Although in the view of the corporation, this could be an excellent strategy for
minimizing expenses, certain factors should be addressed. These might be chemicals
approved by the FDA that are marginally costlier than A &: but less than the main. That
judgment was, I suppose, based purely on the expense without all other factors.
Case Study 2:
Four factors must be present for a contract to be deemed legitimate, 1. Agreement 2.
Recital 3. Capacity for agreements and 4. The object of policy. The first dimension,
agreement, definitely occurs in Sam's case of his creation. For example, a verbal "bid" was

TITLE OF PAPER IN CAPS 4
provided by Sam, to send one thousand units to the retail store. Sam may even be viewed as
an approval to the deal through a letter of the stores. The message is Sam, requesting a supply
of the items. Third, the statutory ability in this situation will be taken into account. Further,
where the contract is not detrimental to public policy and does not allow the parties to
perform an unlawful act, the legal subject-matter of the contract is often described as 'the
lawful capacity to enter into a contractual arrangement.' In the case of distribution of his
creation, it is met, and the lawful subject-matter remains.
Unless the chain store is not in reality cooperative with Sam, the chain store may
follow specific laws to attain the 1,000 units it orally agreed to receive. Promissory estoppel
is the first way to try (Sánchez Abril et al., 2018). Promissory estoppel is described as the
lawful execution of the contract, which is otherwise ineffective by the parties. Having made a
verbal commitment to provide 1,000 units to the shop, Sam had an obligation to the shop in
his oral speech, while not fixed.
Both the owner and the occupant would have some duties to satisfy. This depends on
the grounds of the conditions of the agreement after entering into a residential rental contract.
The owner is expected to ensure that the premises accepted are property occupant, the
property is protected, and excellent leisure is inferred.
Sam would violate the lease because the owner had an obligation to provide all
residents with a healthy leisure relationship, and Quinn would also have the power to expel
Sam from the apartment (Habibzadeh, 2017). Quinn might have had grounds for evicting
Sam from the apartment if the leasing contract specified that no occupant is allowed to
operate a company in his building.
Throughout his rights to use and to enjoy his property under the rental agreement,
Sam can attempt to protect himself against eviction. Although the lease agreement does or

TITLE OF PAPER IN CAPS 5
may not expressly forbid Sam, its function is an apparent breach of the other tenants by the
noise it produces from the machines (Kogut, 2017). In reality, if the arrangement requires
Sam to run a business, then Sam will be able to claim the landlord's reasoning in the disposal.
Case Study 3:
The facility to grow, control, and retain all revenues are some of the significant
benefits of single proprietary management. The rules of forming a corporation are less strict
than some, so for the first time, a sole individual creating a firm that is a significant gain. The
big drawbacks include that a single entity is personally responsible for any impairment or
liability, and financing is restricted to financial funds and loans. The damage responsibility is
a significant drawback and could lead a small corporation to become quite weak.
Collaboration is another form of organization. There are various forms of
partnerships, such as a general partnership, a joint partnership, and an arrangement of
restricted liability. In a public relationship, management obligations, benefits, and liabilities
are typically shared between partners (Brilmayer et al., 2019). A party typically does not
share in a joint agreement. Instead, it holds liability for the amount equal to the participation
in the contract.
For Jeb, Josh and Arcadia Sports a limited liability partnership business will be an
outstanding choice. Jeb is the partner who generates more capital, and as he already has a
profitable wind farm, he won't share in regular operations. Josh, on the other side, is an
authority on both the exterior and sporting products and will be the company face and
"director." For these situations, liability insurance is a reasonable point of selling because it
prevents particular parties against collateral responsibility for irresponsible actions by other
parties or workers not specifically regulated in this form by relationship system. Another great

TITLE OF PAPER IN CAPS 6
factor of a LLP is that individual partners are not personally responsible for company debts or
other obligations.
Based on the characteristics of each type of business entity, Jeb and Josh will be
personally liable for the losses occurred to their partner, Jane. This will happen even for all
kinds partnership in all kid of business entity. The liability will take place only when Jane
starts to sue them. Once Jane sues them, they will have to bear the cost of the damages.
Based on each type of business entity, the only business entity that would allow Jeb’s
personal creditors to seize the assets/profits of Arcadia Sports would be a general partnership.
In this business entity, Jeb’s creditors can obtain recovery against both Jeb and Josh as each
partner is personally liable for each partner’s debts.

TITLE OF PAPER IN CAPS 7
References
Bar-Gill, O., Ben-Shahar, O., & Marotta-Wurgler, F. (2019). The American Law Institute’s
Restatement of Consumer Contracts: Reporters’ Introduction. European Review of
Contract Law, 15(2), 91-102.
Brilmayer, R. L., Goldsmith, J. L., O'Connor, E. O. H., & Vázquez, C. (2019). Conflict of
laws: cases and materials. Aspen Publishers.
Brown, C. A., & Ackerman, D. T. (2016). Abating the Bounds of Commerce: A Quantitative
Analysis of Transnational Contract Formation. Journal of International Business and
Law, 15(2), 5.
Habibzadeh, T. (2017). Developing Internet Jurisdiction in B2B and B2C Contracts:
Focusing on Iranian Legal System with Comparative Study of American, English and
eu Laws. Arab Law Quarterly, 31(3), 276-304.
Kubasek, N. K., Brennan, B. A., & Browne, M. N. (2016). The legal environment of
business: A critical thinking approach. Pearson.
Kogut, B. (2017). Book Review Essay: Economic Sociology as the New Dismal Science:
Gerald F. Davis: The Vanishing American Corporation: Navigating the Hazards of a
New Economy, and Yuval Levin: The Fractured Republic: Renewing America’s
Social Contract in the Age of Individualism.
Sánchez Abril, P., Oliva Blázquez, F., & Martínez Evora, J. (2018). The Right of Withdrawal
in Consumer Contracts: a comparative analysis of American and European
law. InDret, 3, 18-13.

TITLE OF PAPER IN CAPS 8
Tone, A. (2018). The business of benevolence: Industrial paternalism in progressive
America. Cornell University Press.