SAMPLE ANSWERS TO UNIT I PROBLEM SET

BUSINESS LAW 120 ONLINE

KOSTREY/FALL 2007

CHAPTER 1
1. Common law developed in the judicial system of England and its colonies
before 1776. Statutory law refers to the body of law that is enacted by state and
federal legislatures. Common law is not in any particular form; it consists of
quotable statements taken from relevant opinions by prior judges, as well as
ancient statutes, and is often summarized in legal treatises. Statutory law is
found in the current published laws of each jurisdiction and is relatively concise.
Although most states have adopted common law by legislative decree, state
legislatures do not feel obligated to pass statutes consistent with common law,
and inconsistent statutes supersede common law. Only in areas where the
legislature has not acted does common law serve as the primary authority. For
example, the Uniform Commercial Code in each state changed some rules of
common law previously in effect.

5.
Stare decisis is a Latin phrase meaning “to stand on decided cases.” In the King’s
court of medieval England, it became customary for judges to refer to past
decisions (precedents) in deciding cases involving similar issues. Over time,
because of application of the doctrine of stare decisis to issues that came before
the courts, a body of jurisprudence was formed that came to be known as the
“common law” – because it was common to the English realm. Common law was
applied in the American colonies prior to the War of Independence and was
adopted by the American states following the Revolution. Common law
continues to be applied today in all cases except those falling under specific state
or federal statutory law. The doctrine of stare decisis is fundamental to the
development of our legal tradition because without the acceptance and
application of this doctrine, the evolution of any objective legal concepts – and
thus a legal “tradition” would have been impossible.

6.
A majority opinion is a written opinion outlining the views of the majority of the
judges or justices deciding a particular case. A concurring opinion is a written
opinion by a judge or justice who agrees with the conclusion reached by the
majority of the court but not necessarily the legal reasoning that led to the
conclusion. A concurrence will voice alternative or additional reasons as to why
the conclusion is warranted or clarify certain legal points concerning the issue. A
dissenting opinion is a written opinion in which a judge or justice, who does not
agree with the conclusion reached by the majority of the court, expounds his or
her views on the case. A concurrence or dissent may be used by another court
later to support its position on a similar issue.

1
7.
Because the common law has been adopted in most jurisdictions by state
statutes, and because legislatures have given common law the same force and
effect as statutes, judges should, technically, have no more authority to overrule
common law than they have to overrule statutory law. Most courts and
legislatures, however, do not take such a view. Courts do not always treat
common law with the same deference as statutory law because common law is
judge-made law, and therefore the courts feel that it can be changed by judges.

8.
In the American legal system, a court can depart from a precedent if it decides
that the precedent should no longer be followed. A court can overturn a statute
that it believes is in violation of the Constitution. If there is not precedent on
which to base a decision, a court must establish the law on the question at issue.
In all of these instances, the court’s role is to “make the law.” In support of the
court’s role, it may be pointed out that technological or social changes can
outdate a precedent or a statute. In some cases, particularly when the foundation
for a precedent was the Constitution, correction of an earlier decision through
legislation is practically impossible. Courts do not lightly make use of their
prerogative. Against the court’s role, it may be noted that although judges
attempt to be free of bias, each has a unique set of values, intellectual abilities,
and philosophies that color her opinions. The doctrine of precedent introduces
certainty into legal affairs that can lend itself to effective planning of private and
business activities, provides attorneys with a settled basis from which to advise
their clients, curbs the arbitrariness of judges, speeds judicial business, and
reinforces our notions of justice.

CHAPTER 2
1.
An arbitrator’s decision has the binding force of law only because the two parties
in an arbitration proceeding agree (by contract) to be legally bound by the
arbitrator’s decision. The success of arbitration, and its status as an alternative to
court settlement of disputes, rests on this underlying agreement between the
parties to be bound by the results. If a person feels that an arbitrator’s opinion is
unjust, that person may appeal the dispute to a court. Courts, however, are very
reluctant to judge the validity of an arbitrator’s decision, which is regarded as
final in all cases except where serious misconduct or corruption can be proved.

4.
Marya can bring suit in all three courts. The trucking firm did business in
Florida, and the accident occurred there. Thus, the state of Florida would have
jurisdiction over the defendant. Because the firm was headquartered in Georgia
and had its principal place of business in that state, Marya could also sue in a
Georgia court. Finally, because the amount of controversy exceeds $50,000, the
suit could be brought in federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship.

2
CHAPTER 4
3.
If an employee’s right to the free exercise of her religion conflicts with the
demands of an employer, the employer must “reasonably accommodate” the
employee’s religious needs. If the employer fires Placer without first attempting a
reasonable accommodation of his religious needs, very likely a court would hold
that the firm violated Title VII of the Civil Rights of 1964. What constitutes
“reasonable accommodations” usually varies depending on the specific
circumstances of each case. Here, the employers should consider the
reasonableness of its demands and consider alternative efforts that might be
undertaken to meet its deadlines. For example, the employer might arrange for
Placer to work longer than eight hours a day during the rest of the week to
compensate for his not working on Saturday. Or perhaps it would be in the firm’s
best interest to hire additional, temporary employees until its backlog of orders is
filled.

4.
By distributing functions among local governments and the national government
in a federal form, the Constitution divides power so that each level has some
domain in which it is dominant and some guarantee of its authority. To prevent
the national government from using its power arbitrarily, the Constitution
provides for 3 branches of government (the legislative, the executive, and the
judicial), each of which performs a separate function. No branch may exercise
the authority of another branch, but each has power to limit the action of the
other two, through a system of checks and balances.

5.
The district court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint. The plaintiffs appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s
decision. The plaintiffs argued that because the ordinance applied to female
topless entertainment, but not to male topless entertainment, it violated the
equal protection clause. As a gender-based distinction, this ordinance’s
classification was subject to intermediate scrutiny. The appellate court pointed
out that gender-based distinctions are acceptable in circumstances in which the
two genders are not similarly situated. The court concluded that “New York
City’s objective of preventing crime, maintaining property values, and preserving
the quality of urban life are important. We also believe that the [ordinance’s]
regulation of female, but not male, topless dancing, in the context of its overall
regulation of sexually explicitly commercial establishments, is substantially
related to the achievement of New York City’s objectives.” The court noted that,
in drafting the ordinance, the city regulated “only the types of establishments that
have been found to produce negative impacts on the communities in which they
are located.” Male topless establishments were not among those found to have
negative effects. “The male chest has been routinely exposed on beaches, in
public sporting events, and the ballet, and in general consumption magazine
photography without involving any sexual suggestion. In contrast, public
exposure of the female breast is rare under the conventions of our society and

3
almost invariable conveys sexual overtones. It is therefore permissible for New
York City to classify female toplessness differently from the exhibition of the
naked male chest. This does not constitute a denial of equal protection.”

6.
The court dismissed Holland’s complaint, and he appealed. The state
intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision. The state
intermediate appellate court initially determined that, in playing a car sound
system loud enough to violate the ordinance, Holland was not actually expressing
himself. (He was only listening). This meant that, as to Holland, the ordinance
regulated only his conduct, not his expression. The court held that the First
Amendment “protect[s] the communication, and expression of someone
attempting to broadcast music or another type of message, but that noise is
subject to regulation.” The court concluded that Holland failed to show a “real
and substantial threat to expression in relation to the ordinance’s legitimate
sweep.” The court also pointed out that “[t]his ordinance has clear guidelines. A
person of ordinary intelligence knows what it means for sound to be ‘audible’ at
more than 50 feet away.”