BUL 5810: Legal Environment of Business

BUL 5810: Legal
Environment of Business

P2MBAS16

BLaw@rethomas.com

FIRST PROBLEM SET

DUE: 11:55
p.m., Monday February 9 300 Points

PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS

IRAC Case Analysis

1.
There are three case scenarios that you are to
analyze using the IRAC method. This assignment and the second problem set
together are worth 26% of your grade. Points will be allotted for each case
analysis. Each case analysis is worth 100 points as follows:

Issue:
30
Rule: 20
Application: 45

Rule: 5

2.
The first case is a workgroup exercise. The
remaining two require your individual work. Please submit your finished
assignment to Canvas under the Assignments tab. NOTE: There is a
separate Canvas assignment for each of the three cases.Copy your work product
foreach case into the response field of each associated assignment. Do
NOT attach a file.

3.
Rely on your textbook for determination of
relevant rules. You do not have to, and should not,
do outside research. I am most concerned about your reasoning. Therefore,
reaching the“correct” conclusion without a strong analysis will
net you few points.

4.
The IRAC analyses are individual work.
However, do discuss the problems with team members and classmates. Please avoid
asking Cousin Bertha, the family lawyer, for advice. There is a high likelihood
that she will steer you wrong by overanalyzing the question or by giving you an
obscure angle with which my grader is unfamiliar.

5.
There
are several IRAC sample in the files tab of Canvas.

YOU WILL LOSE UP TO 25 POINTS FOR FAILING TO
FOLLOW THESE INSTRUCTIONS!

BUL
5810 Spring 2015 Professor Robert Thomas

Team Case (Group work. Submit one response for all members of your
team)

The legislature of the State of Florado recently
passed a law requiring drivers of trucks carrying explosives on roads in
Florado to have “Special Driving Permits.” These permits are to be
issued only after rigorous physical examinations and driving tests. The Florado
law also provides that only permits issued by Florado are acceptable for truck
drivers; permits issued by certain other states, all of which have less
stringent requirements, are not acceptable. Under the Florado law permits cannot
be issued to persons under 30 or over 60 years of age. The rationale for
adopting these standards was a result of careful examination of empirical
studies. These studies showed with a very high degree of statistical
significance that drivers in these age groups have much higher accident
frequencies.

The law has been particularly difficult for
Wommal Transport, a truck company engaged in the interstate transportation of
dynamite for construction projects through multiple states including Florado.
Fully 36% of Wommal’s drivers are either under 30 or over 60 and roughly 41% of
Wommal’s dynamite shipments go through or terminate in Florado. For example,
Mark, a 27-year-old driver for Wommal, would normally drive dynamite shipments
from Wommal’s home state, Calexas to Florado or through Florado to points
beyond. Mark, a highly skilled and award-winning driver with over seven years
of flawless trucking experience, would easily satisfy both the physical
examination and driving test requirements of the Florado law but is
disqualified due to his age. Mark’s Calexas-issued driver’s permit qualifies
him to drive trucks containing dynamite shipments in every state except
Florado. However, the Florado law prevents Wommal from using Mark for a
substantial proportion of its dynamite shipments.

Wommal is suing to have the Florado law declared unconstitutional.

Hints: Age is obviously a factor in this case, but do
not rely on age discrimination law or theADA. Also, do not rely on the
Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

Assume also that there are no native Florado
trucking companies or other businesses that disproportionately benefit from the
Florado legislation.

2

BUL
5810 Spring 2015 Professor Robert Thomas

Case A (Individual work. You can consult with
other classmates taking this makeup, but the product you submit must be your
own)

Mr. and Ms. Yup, high-powered corporate lawyers, mesh their
schedules and arrange a week’s vacation hiking in the Andes Mountains. To
babysit their offspring (“Little Yup”) and to housesit their house, the Yups
hire a 22-year-old babysitter (“Babysitter”). The Yups, due to their religion,
do not believe in traditional medical care. They rely entirely on chiropractic,
osteopathic and acupuncture treatments for health care. The Yups leave
Babysitter with strict instructions to take Little Yup to their osteopath if
anything happens. They continue, “do not under any circumstance take Little Yup
to the hospital!” They leave Babysitter the name, office phone number, and
office address of their osteopath. They also leave a health insurance card that
includes a health insurance account number for Little Yup. This insurance plan
covers chiropractic, osteopathic, and acupuncture care as well as traditional medical
coverage.

Unfortunately,
while the Yups are away, Little Yup becomes seriously ill. Babysitter contacts
the osteopath and describes Little Yup’s condition. However, the osteopath
informs Babysitter that Little Yup’s condition is beyond his competence, and
instructs Babysitter to take Little Yup to the hospital emergency room.

On
arriving at the hospital, Babysitter presents Little Yup’s health insurance
card (the plan covers emergency care). Queried about the child’s parents,
Babysitter responds, “They’re backpacking in the Andes. I am babysitting Little
Yup for the week.” Babysitter gives the hospital permission to treat Little Yup
and signs the hospitalization contract:“I.M. Babysitter, for Mr. and Ms. Yup.”

The
hospital’s treatment over the course of two days was successful and expensive.
Unfortunately, the Yups’ insurance maxed out at $10,000, leaving a balance of
$15,000 to pay. The Yups assert that they did not give Babysitter (who they
immediately fired on returning from the Andes) permission to take Little Yup to
the hospital, and that they therefore have no obligation to pay. Moreover, they
continue that they don’t believe their insurance should pay the $10,000 from
their policy.

Comments:Do not assume that state law
requires people to pay for medical coverage that theydo not agree to.
Do not apply laws that require parents to pay for the care of their children.
Do not apply quasi-contracts or quantum meruit or other
provisions from equity.

3

BUL
5810 Spring 2015 Professor Robert Thomas

Case B
(Individual work. Consult with teammates and classmates, but the product you
submit must be your own)

Molar
Engineeringis a specialty journal for bioengineers working in
the area of orthodontics.One subscriber is Ali, a researcher at a
dental institute. His wife Barbie works for an archeological reconstruction
firm. One night, suffering from insomnia, Barbie leafs through an issue of Molar
Engineering. She happens to run across a description of an obscure dental
reconstruction process, which she instantly realizes could be used in restoring
antique ceramics. She brings the article to work, and the workers in her
department begin using the process with great success. No ceramics restorer
would have thought to consult such a source as Molar Engineeringfor
guidance. Because the process gives the firm an advantage over competitors,the
firm maintains the process in strict secrecy. One technician, envious of a big
bonus given to Barbie, sells the information to a competitor. In the ensuing
trade secret case, the defendants contend that the process is not a trade
secret because it has been published in a journal.

Are the defendants
correct?

4