Part 2

Multiple Choice then Explanation.

1. With which of the following statements would Immanuel Kant and other proponents of Deontological Ethics have agreed? (A) It is ethical to tell a lie if necessary to protect an innocent person from great harm. (B) It is ethical to tell a lie if the benefit of the lie outweighs the cost. (C) It is wrong for some people to have greater opportunities than others. (D) It is always wrong to tell a lie. Answer:______ Explanation:

2. Greg is a strong swimmer. One afternoon he is having a picnic at a lake and sees a man he does not know drowning. Generally, Greg (A) has a legal duty to rescue the man; (B) has a legal duty to rescue the man, but only if his efforts will not pose a serious threat to his own safety; (C) has a legal duty to rescue the man since, as a strong swimmer, he is treated as a "special class" of persons who must get involved in such situations; (D) has no legal duty to rescue the man. Answer:______ Explanation:2

3. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (the Service) was investigating whether NextEra Energy Resources violated the Endangered Species Act because of the number and breeds of birds killed in its wind farm operations. NextEra refused to give the Service its computerized reports concerning bird kills. To get the reports, the Service should use a(n) (A) motion for interpleader; (B) answer; (C) subpoena duces tecum; (D) motion for sanctions. Answer:______ Explanation:

4. What is the fundamental source of contemporary law in the US? (A) Declaration of Independence; (B) Articles of Confederation; (C) US Constitution; (D) State Constitutions; (E) United States Code Answer:______ Explanation:

5. Anna Mae is a freshman at her local public high school. Her sister, Celestine, attends a nearby private high school. Neither school allows them to join its respective wrestling team; only boys can wrestle at either school. Which of the sisters has a winning case based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? (A) Anna Mae; (B) Celestine; (C) Both Anna Mae and Celestine; (D) Neither Anna Mae nor Celestine Answer:______ Explanation:3

6. Outdoor Technologies (an Australian company) was involved in a contract dispute with Silver Star Limited (a Chinese company). Outdoor prevailed in the litigation in the Australian courts and obtained a judgment for $500,000.00 against Silver Star (a Chinese company) from the Australian courts. Silver Star owned property in Iowa, so Outdoor filed suit in Iowa to enforce and collect the Australian judgment. Which of the following statements is true? (A) Outdoor cannot collect in the United States a judgment that was issued by an Australian court. (B) Outdoor cannot collect in the United States because Silver Star is not an American company. (C) Outdoor can collect in the United States if the proceeding in the Australian courts was fair and proper. (D) Outdoor can collect in the United States, because both the United States and Australia have common law systems. Answer:______ Explanation:

7. For which of the following activities can a foreign sovereign be sued in an American court? (A) Operating a factory dangerously; (B) Issuing a law that discriminates against a certain group of people; (C) Suspending the civil rights of its people; (D) None of the above Answer:______ Explanation:4

8. Grunnings, an American manufacturer of drills and drilling equipment, has been asked to provide construction equipment to a foreign government. The contract is for a sizable amount of money, so Grunnings wants to protect itself if the foreign government refuses to pay for the equipment once it has been delivered. What should Grunnings require in its contract with the foreign government if it wants to protect its right to sue the government if the government does not pay for the goods? (A) a release of sovereignty; (B) a statement of extraterritoriality; (C) a waiver of sovereign immunity; (D) a submission to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice Answer:______ Explanation:

9. In 1992, the North Carolina Supreme Court ruled in a case entitled Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., that when a substance in food causes injury to a consumer of the food, it is not a bar to recovery against the seller that the substance was natural to the food. If, in a 2008 case involving a consumer's injury caused by a fish bone in a bowl of fish chowder, the court followed the decision in Goodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc., the court's action in the second case is an example of (A) stare decisis; (B) judicial review; (C) statutory interpretation; (D) public law. Answer:______ Explanation:5

10. Common law is never as easy as we might like because the law is trying to accommodate both (A) intent and reason; (B) flexibility and precedent.; (C) predictability and flexibility; (D) understandability and predictability. Answer:______ Explanation:

Part 2-B: Short Answer Questions.

1. The Economic Development Ministry of the Republic of Bucolica enters into a commercial lease with a building owner in New York City to rent ground floor shop space for operation of a retail store to sell expensive handicrafts and works of art created by artisans and artists in Bucolica. The lease provides for a 10-year term and includes a customary provision that requires the tenant to pay the landlord for all rent that would have been due over the term of the lease if the tenant defaults before the end of the lease term. Five years into the term of the lease, a new government in Bucolica decides that the store has not been profitable, closes the store and stops paying rent. The landlord then files suit against the government of Bucolica in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. a. What is the governing U.S. statute concerning suits against foreign governments in this situation? (Name the statute.)6 b. Can the landlord sue the government of Bucolica, which is a foreign sovereign nation? Why or why not? c. If the landlord can file suit against the government of Bucolica, what type of suit would it be, civil or criminal? Please explain your choice.

2. ShelfMaster LLC, a manufacturer of custom steel shelving units, received a large order from an international law firm building out new office space. Because of the order's size, ShelfMaster needed an additional quantity of bolts for constructing the shelves. Bolts Unlimited Ltd., a manufacturer of steel bolts, had its plant in Windsor, Ontario, Canada, not far from ShelfMaster's facility in Michigan. ShelfMaster's procurement officer had a copy of the current catalog from Bolts Unlimited, which included Bolts Unlimited's standard terms of sale. The procurement officer telephoned the order line at Bolts Unlimited, discussed the particular requirements for the bolts with the Bolts Unlimited salesperson and (once the salesperson had assured the procurement office that the bolts would meet ShelfMaster's requirements) placed a large order for bolts. The bolts arrived with an invoice from Bolts Unlimited that included a stamped additional term of sale, to which ShelfMaster did not agree, which stated that the liability of Bolts Unlimited for defects would be limited to the purchase price paid to Bolts Unlimited. After the shelving units were constructed and installed, they began failing when the law firm loaded its files onto them. ShelfMaster realized that the bolts were made with a low-grade steel and could not support the weight they were intended to support. ShelfMaster had substantial damages because of the repairs needed and sued Bolts Unlimited for breach of contract and breach of warranty. a. Did the CISG (the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods) govern the dealings between ShelfMaster and Bolts Unlimited, if both the U.S. and Canada are signatories to the CISG? Why or why not? 7 b. If the CISG did govern, did the contract between ShelfMaster and Bolts Unlimited have to be in writing? Why or why not? c. Was the limitation of liability enforceable against ShelfMaster? Why or why not?

3. Kevin is a U.S. citizen and the country manager in Freedonia for an international manufacturing firm based in California. Kevin's firm is interested in undertaking projects in Freedonia that will enhance the economic development of some areas outside the capital city that are economically depressed. Kevin locates a suitable site for a manufacturing plant the company requires to expand its operations in Freedonia. The plant construction project will create hundreds of construction jobs during the 18-month construction process. Once opened, the plant will employ over 5,000 workers on three shifts. Other local businesses would develop to service and support the facility and its workers. Kevin's firm pays salaries in its other facilities in Freedonia that are substantially higher than the prevailing local wages. While development and construction of the new facility in Freedonia has been approved by the company management, there is one substantial obstacle that Kevin faces in getting the project underway. The site is located in an area deemed by local law to be environmentally sensitive. Kevin commissioned a detailed environmental study that determined that, while areas in the general vicinity of the site are environmentally sensitive, the site itself is not environmentally sensitive and does not meet the criteria established in the local law for designating property as environmentally sensitive. The local governor supports the project and understands that the facility does not pose an environmental risk. He has offered to push legislation through the provincial legislature (which is controlled by the governor's political party) amending the environmental statute to remove the site from its protection. The governor has suggested to Kevin that his administration would press the legislature harder and obtain expedited approval of the statute amendment if Kevin's company would be willing to pay him a "facilitation fee" of US$50,000. The budget for the project is over $500,000,000, and Kevin easily could find a line item in the budget in which to slide this "facilitation fee" to the governor. Kevin is unsure what to do in the situation. If the project gets held up by local legal issues, the budget could increase, and the company could abandon this facility.8 a. Identify at least one significant statutory violation risk that Kevin and his company face in the U.S. if Kevin decides to pay the "facilitation fee" to the governor and explain the basis for that risk. b. How might someone who adheres to deontological ethics analyze and decide Kevin's dilemma? c. How might someone who adheres to utilitarian ethics analyze and decide Kevin's dilemma?

4. Identify the three branches of the U.S. national government and briefly discuss the powers and functions of each branch in the U.S. constitutional structure. Please provide three specific examples of how the powers and functions of one branch of government provides a "check" or "balance" against the powers and functions of another branch of government.

5. Some of the ethical traps that present challenges for persons engaged in business activities are conformity, moral licensing, following orders, short-term perspective, and competition. Briefly explain these ethical traps in the context of making business decisions.

6. Upon graduating from law school, Laurel purchased a condominium. When she bought it, she read the covenants that applied to all owners in the complex and realized the homeowner's association had a variety of rules and regulations that she would need to follow. One regulation was that no children were allowed to live in the complex. Two years after buying the condominium, Laurel gave birth to her son, Christopher. As soon as she brought Christopher home to the condominium, she was served with papers from the homeowners' association notifying her that she was required to move out of the complex immediately. Discuss the constitutionality of the homeowner association's action