Business E-Commerce Cases
Business E-Commerce Cases
The main issue that was being litigated in this case was whether the NFL, the NFL Teams, and the NFLP separate legal entities were capable of engaging in a contract, combination or conspiracy as defined by Section 1 of the Sherman Act? (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). In order to understand the issue that the case outlined in the facts how Section 1 of the Sherman Act was approached by the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court ended up holding that the NFL, the individual tams, and the NFLP were separate entities capable of engaging in concerted activity, which was in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013).
Question 1:
This is one of the main principles discussed in this case because there was an inclination for these NFL teams to try to declare themselves as joint ventures in order to avoid anti-trust laws, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). Even though this was attempted, it was held that they could not get away with this and were in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by attempting to do so, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). Even though this case presented a grey area in how Section 1 of the Sherman Act was interpreted, it was an important nuance of Section 1 of the Sherman Act to litigate for comprehensive understanding in the business world of the Act’s applications.
Question 2:
I do believe that there was a slight unethical conduct in this case because these NFL teams have such high revenues that of course, there was an effort to avoid high taxation payments and the like.
Question 3:
I do think that this case has a substantial impact because it is now the standard to follow in legal precedents when similar issues arise in commerce relating to Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
This case focused on an FDA inspection that found several different parts of insect and rodent parts in butter production, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). The insect fragments were cooked and distributed into the butter, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). The main issue that was being litigated in the case was whether the butter was adulterated in violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act?, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013).
This case brings up a rather sensitive subject in that Americans are very particular about what they eat and given the regulations that came into place after the Great Depression and Industrialization have a certain standard of living that they expect within the United States. For this reason, I do think that this violated the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, not to mention most American’s standards of culinary decency. Americans view themselves as having the right to eat a certain quality of food and being American, I can assure you that this does not include rodent a la mode and puree de insect in their butter. That being said, there is always a counter argument to be argued and that is whether the company made an honest error in placing the insect and rodent fragments in their butter. A determination would need to be made into the facts in order to ascertain if there was some negligence on the company’s part that was not derived out of bad faith. Perhaps, then they would be less liable; however, given the severity of the company’s disregard for American food standards, this would be highly unlikely to be successful in a lawsuit.
Endangered Species:
The text also discusses the issue of endangered species. While this issue is relevant to many environmentalists, it does not have a substantial impact on American commerce as the others do in this section; however, one strong effect that can be argued is the stalling that happens to commerce relating to blocks environmentalists put onto social progression in the form of construction projects and the like.
Adverse Possession:
Adverse Possession is a tricky provision of American property law that seldom is forgotten. This is absolutely relevant to United States commerce because adverse possession could have bearing on a corporation’s ownership of a piece of land if the prior owner had their title to the land revoked due to Adverse Possession, for example. What is important to understand about Adverse Possession is that the possession has to be open and notorious, for a certain period of time dictated by the individual state, and then the prior land owner loses title. Where there are many discrepancies with this is if the original owner is not constructively aware of the adverse possession, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). This has a great deal of potential to impact business because in the best case, the land owner will be able to recuperate their title from the adverse possessor; however, in the worst case, they may lose their title and it will greatly affect the interests of their business, for example.
Resale Price Maintenance:
In this section, the book discusses the Union Oil Company who was a major oil company in the United States, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). The franchise dealers had leased their stations from Union Oil and also signed a franchise agreement to purchase gasoline and other products, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). The prices in these agreements were fixed, which ended up changing in value over time, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013).
This case also highlights an enormous issue in contract law because at times, price fixing become very detrimental to one party. One the one hand one can make the argument that the damaged party knew the nature of the risks of this sort of agreement; however, one can also make the argument that this is impracticable because if the damage is so great that no reasonable party could have expected it, for example, the dropping of the price of grain in a great surplus, then there absolutely is another side of the argument to be seen. This is a major issue in contract law that is absolutely relevant to United States business.
Fair Debt Collection:
The case in this section relates to Stanley Juras who was a student at Montana State University, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). The case was in connection to student loans that Juras refused to pay that had been sold to a debt collector who was making threatening calls that Juras claimed violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013).
This case is absolutely relevant in the United States today. Given the plethora of student debt, it is not unreasonable to question the amount of debt and how it is being collected. In this case, sure the debt collector had a right to call, but to threaten the transcript was crossing the line. That being said, one could make the counter argument that the debt collector was in their rights because the transcript was a benefit of attending the university and not threatening the family of Juras, for example. It is likely that the former argument will prevail because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act is designed to relieve the debtor who can longer make payments from awful and harassing behavior.
The case that is discussed in this section is relating to the state of Michigan that owns roughly 57,000 acres of land that comprise the Pigeon River County State Forest in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). What is debated in this area is the elk’s chance of survival due to the plethora of roads that have been constructed, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). What the cases focuses on is whether the construction of these roads in fact endangers the elk’s chance of survival?, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013). What ended up happening in the case is that an environmentalist group sued for the state granting drilling permits to Shell in this area stating that it would endanger the elk’s survival, (Cheeseman, H.R., 2013).
What this case brings up is the issue of a company’s social responsibility. There have been many different perspectives relating to social responsibility in business. For this reason, social responsibility has been a topic of heated discussion with companies such as Shell that are notorious for environmental violations. Shell, granted, they have the counter argument for advancing industry; however, the often get eliminated by environmental activists for their business practices given that they are in the oil industry, which is rarely in the interest of the environment.
Question 3:
In discussing who wins, it truly lies in the eyes of the person studying the case. Sure, the elk is a valued member of the animal community; however, it is surely open for discussion whether the elk is more important than oil drilling for society. Regarding Shell being socially responsibly, in this case, it is likely that they are because the benefits of their project surely outweigh the benefits that the elk does. While many environmentalists would disagree, it is important to view the issue from both the perspective of the environmentalist and the multinational corporation.
References
Cheeseman, H.R., (2013). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce: Business Ethics, E-Commerce, Regulatory, and International Issues (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
