Business Law Assignment: Course on Legal Principles Analysis

This business law assignment solution addresses several key legal concepts through a series of questions and answers. The assignment begins with a case study on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), analyzing whether a bribe to a foreign manager would be illegal. It then examines issues of privacy and intrusion, specifically whether an employer's videotaping in the bathroom constitutes a violation. Further, the assignment delves into questions of free speech, negligence, and the application of tort law, including duty of care and damages. The solution also discusses the legal implications of harassment, agency, and disparate impact in employment. It concludes with a discussion on dispute resolution processes and relevant legal standards.

RUNNING HEAD: BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT 1
BUSINESS LAW ASSIGNMENT
STUDENT’S NAME
COURSE
UNIVERISTY
DATE

2
QUESTION ONE
(a), Yes it would be illegal under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act to bribe the Manager for the
foreign company to finalize the contract.
(b) The FCPA prohibits payments, gifts, or even offers of any valuable thing to a foreign official
with the intention of influencing the official to do something in your favor which might be
obtaining, retaining or directing a business (Carney, 2017).
For an act to violate the FCPA, three elements must be present:
A payment or something of value is offered, promised or given.
Anything of value under FCPA refer to cash and non-cash gifts or other benefits
such as:
A promise for a tender after paying a given amount of money to a foreign
company
Employment opportunity for the child of a foreign official.
In the provided case study, the FCPA would be violated if company Z bribes the
Manager of the foreign company CI 1% of the value of the contract for finalization.
When dealing with a foreign official
According to Keller, (2018), a foreign official as defined under the FCPA, can be
the employee or an agent of a foreign government and the following persons also qualify
as foreign officials:
Administrators of foreign companies like in the case study provided the manager of the
foreign company CI
Employees of a public international organization such as the world bank
Members of a royal family

3
When payment is made for corrupt purpose
A person is said to be acting with a corrupt purpose if he or she offers, promises or
provides something of value to a foreign official so as to secure any business advantage
The request made by the manager of the foreign company CI so as to finalize the contract for
Company Z was a violation of the FCPA hence illegal.
QUESTION TWO
(a) NO, the employer is not committing the tort of invasion of privacy or intrusion by
videotaping in the bathroom
(b) Reason
The invasion of privacy is the intrusion into the personal life of the other party without a
just cause or for personal bad ambitions. The management did not violate the tort of
privacy when it decided to video tape the group that was said to be discussing the
strategies to counter the elimination of health benefits despite being aware that it was
illegal. The company had a good reason to do that which was to know the real culprits
who were escalating this issue further so as to take legal action against them (Beatty,
Samuelson, & Abril, 2018).

4
According to Macaulay, (2018), Invasion of privacy has the following key elements:
Intrusion on one’s private affairs
Private affairs refer to a person’s secret that he or she doesn’t want to be exposed to the
public for his or her own personal reasons
The management did not intrude their privacy because it had a genuine reason for placing
a hidden video camera.
Public disclosure of embarrassing private information
It means when a person discloses a confidential information that is embarrassing to the
public without the other person’s consent.
The management was not disclosing any confidential embarrassing information about the
women to the public because everyone in the company was aware that indeed it was an
offence to discuss about the elimination of the health Care benefit for unmarried domestic
partners since it lowered the employees’ morale hence the company had a justifiable
reason to place the hidden video cameras.
Publicity that puts a person in a false light to the public
This is where a person black mails the other person convincing the public with the wrong
information about the person.
The management intentions for placing the hidden video cameras was to identify those
women who were discussing what the management was against so as to take a legal
action against them. The company had no intentions of providing false information about
them to the public hence no offence.
Distortion of one’s name or picture for commercial advantage
This is where one person talks ill about the other person especially when the other person
is a threat in business with an aim of minimizing the person’s business prospects to
achieve monopolism.
The management never intended to distort the women’s picture for any gain but intended
to identify the culprits who were still breaking the stipulated law so as to take a legal
action against them.

5
c) Yes, it is a violation of rights to free speech in the U.S constitution.
QUESTION THREE
States where men can bring that class of action should be at the headquarters of the Man
Fresh Company since the manufacturing occurs there and the suppliers headquarter is out
of question.
a) California
b) The manufacturing company operates in California hence all the complaints should
be raised within its jurisdiction
This is because the state court has authority over all the effects suffered by the
consumers from the company’s products (Fenwick& Wrbka, 2018).
c)The defendants will be held liable for the lack of duty of care to the consumers

6
QUESTION FOUR
a) Eugenia’s best claim against the company is negligence of lack of duty of care
for the third party by their employee who was just driving carelessly resulting to
an accident something that would had been avoided.
b) Eugenia’s claim was genuine as per the elements in the law of torts of negligence.
There are three elements in the tort of negligence which are as follows:
DUTY OF CARE
According to Snyder, & Maslow, (2018), It states that any single person must always take
reasonable care so that he can avoid acts that can he can foresee reasonably as likely to result to
injury to his neighbor. A neighbor is that person who is directly and closely affected by one’s act
of negligence of duty of care as in this case study Eugenia is Kyle’s neighbor.
Kyle was driving at a dangerous speed knowing that it was extremely dangerous to overspeed
due to possibility of accident and in the process injured Eugenia hence Eugenia has a right to sue
the company whose vehicle was been over sped by Kyle.
Breach of the duty
This must be proved by checking how likely the injury was and how it can be regarded i.e. the
injury gravity as to whether the plaintiff at all engaged in a dangerous activity and whether the
defendant failed to make efforts to removed the risk of injury. Kyle breached the duty of care by
driving recklessly something that he would have avoided hence he was guilty of the offence.
Damages
This refers to the loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the negligence of the defendant.
Eugenia was injured and further her vehicle was damaged by the impact of collision hence she
was liable for compensation by Kyle.

7
QUESTION FIVE
a) No, the company would not be liable if she reports of the harassment.
b) Reason
This is because the harassment policy was violated which states that any incident
should be reported when an employee is harassed but since she had resigned she was
no longer an employee in the company hence the incident is null and void.
QUESTION SIX
a) No, the agent did not have any authority to do that because he has acted beyond
his powers.
b) Agency by express appointment by the principal
c) Explanation
Agency by express appointment by the principal is where an authority is
conferred by the principal to the agent.
The main elements of this type of agency are:
The agent should remain within the limits of his principal
Under all the circumstances an agent should always stick to the instructions given
by his boss regarding any activity especially in contractual basis. If the agent
exceeds this authority, then the principal will not be bound and the agent will be
personally liable to the third party for the breach of the warranty of authority,
hence in this case study, the agent himself will be liable for the extra amount in
the contract with the Chinese company for failing to stick to the $3 million budget
outlined by the principal.

8
QUESTION SEVEN
Zack
This is because retaliation against a family member as a result of another party’s mistake is
illegal hence Zoe was not right to fire Zack when Zack’s wife who is a police officer sued her
husband Maximillian for drinking and driving
QUESTION EIGHT
a) Disparate impact
Defense for MMDC’S
There are two major defenses that the company can have against her claim:
I) The ultimate business goal which the employer seeks to achieve through application
of the law is very essential for the dancing company
II) The practice selected is essential to measure the ability to dance with flexibility
Legal standards of the defense
The company cannot go against its stipulated rules and regulations for dancers’ qualifications so
as to accomplish the objectives set.
This also enhances the strictness of the company to its policies which should not be violated
under any circumstances.
QUESTION NINE
a) The dispute resolution process is called mediation

9
QUESTION TEN
a) The answer is B
b) The answer is A
c) This is because the drivers will take the precautionary measures
QUESTION ELEVEN
a) The answer is A
QUESTION TWELVE
The answer is B
QUESTION THIRTEEN
The answer is A
QUESTION FOURTEEN
The answer is A

10
References
Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., & Abril, P. S. (2018). Business law and the legal environment.
Cengage Learning.
Carney, W. (2017). The Background of Modern American Business Law. J. Juris, 32, 93.
Fenwick, M., & Wrbka, S. (2018). International Business Law: Emerging Fields of Regulation.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Keller, W. H. (2018). Investigating Student Engagement in Technology-Enhanced Learning at
the Intersection of Business and Law.
Macaulay, S. (2018). Non-contractual relations in business: A preliminary study. In The Law
and Society Canon (pp. 155-167). Routledge.
Snyder, D. V., & Maslow, S. (2018). Human Rights Protections in International Supply Chains
—Protecting Workers and Managing Company Risk: 2018 Report and Model Contract Clauses
from the Working Group to Draft Human Rights Protections in International Supply Contracts,
ABA Section of Business Law.