Paper Example: Rules of Jurisdiction

There is a great interlink between the two terminologies in law. Minimum contacts as depicted In International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945), the highest courts in the United States have made it clear that for a defendant to be bound by minimum contact, the defendant has to be enjoying a combination of the following factors; a consistent benefit from the state of jurisdiction, and a reason for charge emanating from the action carried out (Beatty, Samuelson, & Abril, 2018). In Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, 480 U.S. 102 (1987), there was a need to have clarity as it was realized that defendants could suffer unfairly due to conflict of interest.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The courts of Asahi, stood to it that despite the limits of a minimum contact, considerations have to be put in place pertaining to the consequences of putting forth personal jurisdiction. Repercussions would be the load on the defendant, the benefits associated with the state handling the case, the complainants' interests in having the case ruled on his or her favor and generally the effectiveness of having the state handling the case asserting a jurisdiction. Lastly, from the case study, the product was sold on social media platforms and that's where the complainant (Donald Margolin) sourced the information and bought the product.

From the definition of jurisdiction, it is the territorial area where a judge can pass charges as permitted by the laws. Unfortunately, the internet has no boundaries or else, physical boundaries can never be a hindrance to internet users since it is virtual accessibility to shared networks known as cyberspaces (Guerra-Pujol, 2017). There are several cases within the cyberspaces that are not permissible by international law while others can only be executed within a specific territory. For instance, any information leading to the security vulnerability of a nation would certainly lead to charges filed on the perpetrator (Beatty, Samuelson, & Abril, 2018). To understand the sliding scale test in cyber law in the United States, there are three characteristics that are necessary to determine jurisdiction. Passive websites where information within the website could be for commercial use such as selling of products and services. For the passive websites, the US courts do not find jurisdiction in such websites. The second characteristic is the intermediary websites where the levels of interaction could bare the nature of a commercial store with equal measures of a physical store (Guerra-Pujol, 2017). Lastly, the active websites have established their social sites and even actively market and even sell their products online giving the buyers a chance to get into a contract with them and even pursue purchasing their products. In our case study, it is clear that Donald Margolin got into a contract with Novelty Now Inc. and Chris, Matt and Ian and purchased a product that was actively sold on the internet. Other territories such as the European Union would base their jurisdiction on the residence of the perpetrator.

Case Study One: Alternative Dispute Resolution

There are two cons that make the parties participating in mediation vulnerable or rather one-party having an advantage over the other. There is room for flexibility in the agreement reached which can incline to one side. There are people who wish to have finality in their resolutions thus leaving a loophole that could lead to litigation which may not be avoidable. Litigation tends to take ages in comparison to mediation but again, if an agreement is not arrived at, mediation can take longer than expected or precedented.

Arbitration has several pros which are speed and confidentiality. Arbitration is quicker than litigation in most instances because the time span allocated for tenacity could be adjusted to be sooner. But there are other exceptions for instance where there are more arbitrators or more complex disputes, they may take longer than litigation. For the fact that the cases are resolved outside courts, the members involved are concealed to protect the involved parties. This becomes a good thing when letting people know the perpetrators do more harm than good.

Case Study One: Criminal Acts

The respondent superior doctrine ensures the employee is fully covered on the wrongdoings that could emerge within the scope of the employment of the agency. To impose a charge there has to be evidence of a master-servant relationship. To prove the defendant was guilty, there has to be an analysis of whether the master was in a position to manage or else prevent the mess caused by the employee. If it happens that the master had no control, then there is no liability to the master. For our case study, Novelty Now Inc. /Chris, Matt and Ian they were only partners and worked within the set guidelines and thus Novelty Now Inc should not be held responsible because there is no master-servant relationship.

The responsibility corporate officer doctrine is very categorical and should be held responsible within their areas of responsibility. In an industry, anything that affects public health and welfare and is released in the presence of an officer he or she should be charged for negligence in exercising the rights bestowed to him or her. For case study one, Novelty Now Inc. is a recognized institution and had all the rights to ensure the PYR emulsifier that is not FDA approved from being substituted as a compound in funny face products.

Case Study One: Ethical Decision-Making

There are many frameworks designed to draw concrete decisions in a business setup. The three subtle decisions include the WHO aimed to address the impacts and implications to the interested parties in the products or the business. In case study one, it is clear that the perpetrators only considered their selfish gains by substituting a compound in their product with a cheaper one just to obtain higher returns which in turn affects the consumers greatly (Stratil, Baltussen, Scheel, Nacken, & Rehfuess, 2020). The second part is the PURPOSE which guided one of the milestones to achieve and they are intertwined with ethical values which are freedom, security, justice, and efficiency. The fact that the consumer of the product was affected, freedom is denied to pursue the business further, there is no assurance to the rest of the consumers on the safety of the product hence security is compromised. The product having a poor reputation in the market cannot be efficient in obtaining returns and thus not just to the consumers and the shareholders in the business. Lastly, HOW, aims at pointing on the actions needed to ensure the business is action-oriented as depicted in universal business behavior.

References

Beatty, J. F., Samuelson, S. S., & Abril, P. (2018). Business law and the legal environment. Cengage Learning.

Guerra-Pujol, F. E. (2017). Legal liability for data fraud. Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 33(3), 755-761.

Stratil, J. M., Baltussen, R., Scheel, I., Nacken, A., & Rehfuess, E. A. (2020). Development of the WHO-INTEGRATE evidence-to-decision framework: an overview of systematic reviews of decision criteria for health decision-making. Cost Effectiveness and Resource Allocation, 18(1), 8.

Cases Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 107 S. Ct. 1026, 94 L. Ed. 2d 92 (1987).