Question

Please make the post as original as possible!

Discuss case study: Globe Life Insurance Company has undertaken a new sales program that targets neighborhoods in Los Angeles where drive-by shootings were a nightly occurrence. Two such shootings occurred in which children were killed as they sat in their living rooms. Globe salespeople were instructed to "hit" the houses surrounding those where children were victims. They were also told to contact the parents of those children to sell policies for their other children. Tom Raskin, an experienced Globe salesman, read of a drive-by shooting at Nancy Leonard's home, in which Leonard's 5-year-old son was killed. The Los Angeles Times reported that Leonard was a single parent with four other children. Raskin traveled to Leonard's home and described the benefits of a Globe policy for her other children. He offered her the $10,000 term life policy for each of the children for a total cost of $21 per month. Leonard was in the process of making funeral arrangements for her son, and Raskin noted, "See how much it costs for a funeral." Leonard had been given several tranquilizers the night before by a physician at the hospital's emergency room. The physician had also given her 15 more tranquilizers to help her through the following week. She had taken one additional tranquilizer an hour before Raskin arrived, using a Coors Lite beer to take the pill. Leonard signed the contract for the policy. After her son's funeral, she received the first month's bill for it and exclaimed, "I didn't buy any life insurance! Where did this come from?"

Discuss whether Leonard had legal standing to sue Globe. Did she have to pay for the life insurance? Also, discuss the ethical issues involved in the Globe's sales program. Discuss the legal issues involved in Raskin's decision to target Leonard the day after her son's death.

Answer 1

Solution:-

Yes. Leonard is eligible to sue against Globe provided she prove that she has taken the decision without the complete understanding state. Because the law seeks to balance the interests of the drunk contract signer against the rights of the presumably sober second party to the contract but could consider the “meeting of the minds” happened with complete consciousness of not.

Yes. She has the legal obligation to pay the life insurance premium until she proves that she has committed to purchase the insurance without consciousness.

Ethical issues involved in the Globe's sales program:

The Leonard has to prove that she has taken the purchase decision without a meeting of the minds in a sales contract

Though the Leonard is not legally eligible for suing against the Globe, there are several ethical issues that impact the company:

Under the sales program, the company proposes to contact the parents of children victims is not an ethically correct thing.

The sales program has targeted the people who are just facing disaster which is not ethically correct

The statement "See how much it costs for a funeral" used by Raskin while selling the insurance may be considered as the exploitation of the situation by a salesperson

The legal issues involved in Raskin's decision to target Leonard the day after her son's death:

The Raskin may or may not know about Leonard alcohol consumption and medicine (tranquillizers)

The Leonard is in a depressed mood and also to control the same she is consuming the medicine. At the same time, she has taken alcohol before Raskin addresses her. But there is no legal issue to whether to approach her or not. It is completely to the discretion of the salesperson and is more related to an ethical grounds

please give a positive vote if you find this solution helpful. Thank you