ch. 1-1 the legal environment of business © 2009 pearson education inc. publishing as prentice hall...

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-11

THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS

© 2009 Pearson Education Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall© 2009 Pearson Education Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 1

The Legal Environment of BusinessThe Legal Environment of Business

A Critical Thinking ApproachA Critical Thinking Approach

55thth Edition Edition

Nancy K. KubasekNancy K. Kubasek

Bartley A. BrennanBartley A. Brennan

M. Neil BrowneM. Neil Browne

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-22




CHAPTER 1CHAPTER 1

Critical Thinking and Critical Thinking and Legal ReasoningLegal Reasoning

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-33



Legal Reasoning – reasoning with Legal Reasoning – reasoning with a purposea purpose

Example:Example: Do tobacco manufacturers have liability Do tobacco manufacturers have liability

for the deaths of smokers?for the deaths of smokers?

ConclusionConclusion - A position or - A position or stance on a particular issue.stance on a particular issue.

Example:Example: Yes – accountability for their product.Yes – accountability for their product. No – freedom of choiceNo – freedom of choice

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-44



The 8 Steps to Legal ReasoningThe 8 Steps to Legal Reasoning

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-55



Critical thinking focuses on the Critical thinking focuses on the quality of someone’s reasoningquality of someone’s reasoning

DefinitionDefinition::

Understand the argumentUnderstand the argument

Apply evaluative criteriaApply evaluative criteria

Assess the quality of the Assess the quality of the reasoningreasoning

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-66



The Demand for Better Critical The Demand for Better Critical Thinking Skills:Thinking Skills:

Competitive PressureCompetitive Pressure

Business EthicsBusiness Ethics

Understanding the LawUnderstanding the Law

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-77



United States of America v. Martha Stewart and United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter BacanovicPeter Bacanovic

United States District Court for the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 2004Southern District of New York 2004

A Critical Thinking CaseA Critical Thinking Case

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-88



Facts:Facts:

Martha Stewart sold stocks on 12/27/01Martha Stewart sold stocks on 12/27/01

ImClone announced FDA rejection on ImClone announced FDA rejection on 12/28/0112/28/01

Stewart and Bacanovic convictedStewart and Bacanovic convicted

Expert witness accused of perjuryExpert witness accused of perjury

Perjury should be grounds for new trialPerjury should be grounds for new trial

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-99



Issues:Issues:

When can a court grant a new trial?When can a court grant a new trial?

Does perjury of a witness mean that Does perjury of a witness mean that defendants should have a new trial?defendants should have a new trial?

Do the regulations associated with Rule Do the regulations associated with Rule 33 and relevant case law permit the 33 and relevant case law permit the defendant to have a new trial?defendant to have a new trial?

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-1010



Reasons and Conclusion:Reasons and Conclusion: Reasons: Under Rule 33, perjury is not sufficient basis Reasons: Under Rule 33, perjury is not sufficient basis

for new trial, unlessfor new trial, unless

The government knew about it.The government knew about it.

The perjured testimony was material.The perjured testimony was material.

Without the testimony, acquittal was likely.Without the testimony, acquittal was likely.

Conclusion:Conclusion:

The defendants did not show evidence of these conditions.The defendants did not show evidence of these conditions.

The jury would have still convicted.The jury would have still convicted.

Therefore, motion for a new trial is Therefore, motion for a new trial is denieddenied..

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-1111



Rules of law cited in the Rules of law cited in the Martha Stewart case:Martha Stewart case:

Rule 33 and regulationsRule 33 and regulations

United States v. WallachUnited States v. Wallach

Case lawCase law

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-1212



Courts can grant a new trial if:Courts can grant a new trial if:

It is in the “interest of justice” orIt is in the “interest of justice” or

““reasonable likelihood” (probability that reasonable likelihood” (probability that the alleged perjury could have affected the alleged perjury could have affected the verdict)the verdict)

Ambiguity – Capable of having Ambiguity – Capable of having more than one meaningmore than one meaning

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-1313



FORMSFORMS

• To act without restriction from rules imposed by others.• To possess the capacity or resources to act as one wishes.

• To possess a large enough supply of goods and services that basic needs are met.

• To be safe from those wishing to interfere with your property rights.• To achieve the psychological condition of self-confidence such that

risks are welcomed.

• To receive the product of your labor.• To treat all humans identically, regardless of class, race, gender, age,

and so on.• To provide resources in proportion to need.• To possess anything that someone else was willing to grant you.

• To maximize the amount of wealth in our society.• To get the most from a particular input.• To minimize costs.

Clarifying the Primary Ethical NormsClarifying the Primary Ethical NormsETHICALETHICAL NORMNORM

Freedom

Security

Justice

Efficiency

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-1414



AnalogiesAnalogies

Is the strength of the Is the strength of the independent independent evidenceevidence found in found in thethe Stewart Stewart case equivalent to case equivalent to that in the that in the WallachWallach case? case?

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-1515



Missing InformationMissing Information

Was the jury’s verdict affected by Was the jury’s verdict affected by the perjured testimony?the perjured testimony?

What was the congressional intent What was the congressional intent behind Rule 33?behind Rule 33?

Are there any similar cases in which Are there any similar cases in which the court has ruled differently?the court has ruled differently?

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-1616



Using Critical Thinking to Make Using Critical Thinking to Make Legal Reasoning Come AliveLegal Reasoning Come Alive

• FactsFacts: Just the Relevant Facts: Just the Relevant Facts

• IssueIssue: The Question of the Case: The Question of the Case

• Reasons and ConclusionReasons and Conclusion: The Answer: The Answer

• Relevant Rules of LawRelevant Rules of Law: The Legal Context: The Legal Context

• AmbiguityAmbiguity: The Limits of Words: The Limits of Words

• Ethical NormsEthical Norms: The Basis for Evaluation: The Basis for Evaluation

• Legal AnalogiesLegal Analogies: The Role of Precedent: The Role of Precedent

• Missing InformationMissing Information: Practical Limits: Practical Limits

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-1717



Applying the Critical Thinking ApproachApplying the Critical Thinking Approach

Use systematic, methodical Use systematic, methodical approachapproach

Apply to all cases you readApply to all cases you read

Apply also to other news and Apply also to other news and editorial pieceseditorial pieces

Ch. 1-Ch. 1-1818



All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. Copyright © 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice HallPublishing as Prentice Hall

ch. 1-1 the legal environment of business © 2009 pearson education inc. publishing as prentice hall...

Documents