Business and the Legal Environment
Acme markets, Inc employed 36,000 people and operated with about 16 warehouses but in 1970 they got a letter containing details of the problems with rodent infestation. Thus, after Mr. Park got the letter, he was able to meet with the vice president and was assured that he was being investigated for the problems affecting the firm, and later correct measures would be taken. Thus after investigation was complete, it was found that the firm had some improvement in the facility but there was still infestation of rodent (Jennings, 2012). As a result of this, the firm was charged with violation of the federal food, drug and cosmetic Act, and fined $500.
Later on the court of appeal reversed Mr. Park’s conviction and the government appealed. This is where Park testified in his defense that he had employed a system in which he relied upon his subordinates, and hence he was responsible for the system. Therefore, this entails that the evidence given was relevant as it served to rebut park’s defense that he had justifiable relied upon subordinates to handle sanitation matters. This shows that the fined imposed on Park was not genuine as he was supposed to be entirely responsible for everything that happens in the firm (Bagley, 2012).
The legal reasoning that led the trial court to convict Mr. Park. What logic and legal principles were used?
The legal reason that led Mr. Park to be convicted was the fact that he violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Furthermore, the fact that Mr. Park had received a letter from the FDA and not much implementation was undertaken; it was a right approach that was undertaken as proper measures were not put into practice. Thus, it is the reason as to why the Mr. Park was convicted and fined the $500. The reason and legal principles that were used are the crime charged had been committed, and it was meant to demonstrate that respondents was aware, and hence could not rely on his system of delegation to subordinate to prevent unsanitary at the firm (Jennings, 2012).
Another aspect that was used was the fact that Parker had been warned, and hence he was aware of the deficiencies even before the Baltimore violation had been discovered. This shows that causing of the violation of the Act permitted a claim that the defendant was powerless to prevent or correct the violation. Basically, this entails that he was in management of the firm and employees committed the crime, and hence this held him responsible as he failed to act as a manager (Bagley, 2012).
What was the logic that the appeals court used to reach the conclusion that the conviction was in error?
They concluded that the responsible corporate agents ought to be held responsible for causing violations of the Act. This was so as Park testified that he had employed a system in which he relied upon his subordinates. Therefore, this shows that he was ultimately responsible for this system. Furthermore, he found that the subordinates were dependable, and had great confidence in them. Thus, he was not aware that relying on his subordinates to check on unsanitary conditions could cause him that much harm .Therefore, it is the reason as to what the court concluded that he was not to be entirely blamed (Jennings, 2012).
Park’s approach made his evidence relevant as it served to rebut his defense that had justifiably relied upon subordinates to handle sanitation matters. In essence, this entails the reason as to why the court came up with the conclusion that the conviction was an error. Thus, the approach of making an appeal was essential as it enabled Park to be not to be in the blame just because he was the president of the firm. This also shows that everyone ought to be responsible for their acts of violence and learn from them as they enable one to abide by the laws laid upon by the government (Bagley, 2012).
Formulation of a policy that will avoid a repetition of the situation
There ought to be a person who has to be in charge of looking at the hygiene of the store and the firm as a whole. This will be an essential approach as it will ensure that the presence of rodent and other infestations are evaded. Additionally, the strategy of democratic leadership should be adopted as it will ensure that both members of the firm suggest on the best approaches that have to be undertaken in order to avoid a similar incident. This is beneficial as it will ensure there is ream work and interaction that will benefit the firm as a whole (Cross & Miller, 2011).
Communication and team work is essential for the firm as it enable the firm to come up with better methods that can be used to evade similar problems at Acme. Furthermore, customary cleaning should also be put into practice as it will enable the firm to get rid of such rodents. In essence, taking the proposed strategies will be an essential entity as the firm will definitely not go through the same incident. This is so as cleanliness and team work are sure ways that will contribute to rodents in the firm. Thus, it is significant that all that has been proposed is included in the regulations of the firm for efficiency (Jennings, 2012).
References
Jennings, M (2012) Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business, Edition 2, Cengage Learning
Cross, F & Miller, R (2011) The Legal Environment of Business: Text and Cases: Ethical, Regulatory, Global, and Corporate Issues, Edition 8, Cengage Learning.
