In the 1990s, DuCoa, LP, made choline chloride, a B-complex vitamin essential for the growth and development of animals. The U.S. market for choline chloride was divided into thirds among DuCoa, Bioproducts, Inc., and Chinook Group, Ltd. To stabilize the market and keep the price of the vitamin higher than it would otherwise be, the companies agreed to fix the price and allocate market share by deciding which of them would offer the lowest price to each customer. At times, however, the companies disregarded the agreement. During an increase in competitive activity in 1997, Daniel Rose became president of DuCoa and found out about the conspiracy. In 1998, Rose implemented a strategy to persuade DuCoa's competitors to rejoin the scheme. By April, the three companies had reallocated their market shares and increased their prices. In June, the U.S. Department of Justice began to investigate allegations of price-fixing in the vitamin market. Ultimately, Rose was convicted of conspiracy to violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act. [the United States v. Rose, 449 F.3d 627 (5th Cor. 2006)] (SeeSection 1 of the Sherman Act.) (629, Miller)

1. The court "enhanced" Rose's sentence to thirty months' imprisonment, one year of supervised release, and a $20,000 fine because of his role as "a manager or supervisor" in the conspiracy. Rose appealed this enhancement. Was it fair to increase Rose's sentence on this ground? Why or why not?
2. Was Rose's participation in the conspiracy unethical? If so, how might Rose have behaved ethically instead? Explain.

Case 2

Marcella Lashmett was engaged in farming in Illinois. She had two daughters, Christine Montgomery and Cheryl Thomas. Christine was also a farmer. She often borrowed Marcella's farm equipment. More than once, Christine used the equipment as a trade-in to purchase new equipment titled in Christine's name alone. After each transaction, Christine paid Marcella an agreed-to amount, and Marcella filed a gift tax return. Marcella died on December 19, 1999. Her heirs included Christine and Cheryl. Marcella's will gave whatever farm equipment remained on her death to Christine. However, if Christine chose to sell or trade any of the items, the proceeds were to be split equally with Cheryl. The will name Christine to handle the disposition of the estate, but she did nothing. Eventually, Cheryl filed a petition with an Illinois state court, which appointed her to administer the will. Cheryl then filed a suit against her sister to discover what assets their mother had owned. [In re Estate of Lashmett, 369 Ill.App.3d 1013, 874 N.E.2d 65 (4 Dist. 2007)] (SeeAcquiring Ownership of Personal Property.) (655, Miller)

1. Cheryl learned that three months before Marcella's death, Christine had used Marcella's tractor as a trade-in to purchase a new tractor. The trade-in credit had been $55,296.28. Marcella had been paid nothing, and no gift tax return had been filed. Christine claimed, among other things, that the old tractor had been a gift. What is a "gift"? What are the elements of a miracle? What do the facts suggest on this claim? Discuss.
2. Christine also claimed that she had tried to pay Marcella $20,000 on the trade-in of the tractor but that her mother had refused to accept it. Christine showed a check made out to Marcella for that amount and marked "void." Would you rule in Christine's favor on this claim? Why or why not?