Question

A.   Apply the rules of jurisdiction to the facts of this case and determine what jurisdiction(s) would be appropriate for Margolin’s lawsuit against Funny Face and Novelty Now, respectively. Consider federal court, state court, and long arm principles in your analysis.
B.   Assume all parties agree to pursue alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Analyze the advantages and disadvantages of two types of ADR appropriate for this case. Be sure to define the characteristics of each in your answer.
C.   Applying what you have learned about ADR, which type would each party (Funny Face, Novelty Now, and Margolin) prefer and why?
D.   Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss whether or not corporations and/or corporate officers may be held liable for criminal acts.
E.   Identify, per the classification of crimes in the text, any potential criminal acts by Funny Face and/or Novelty Now.
F. Assume the use of the emulsifier PYR, at the direction of Chris, is a criminal offense. Apply concepts of criminal law and discuss the potential criminal liability of Funny Face, Chris, Matt, Ian, and Novelty Now. Include support for your conclusion.
G. Apply at least three guidelines of ethical decision-making to evaluate ethical issues within the case study.

Answer 1

A) In the question, personal jurisdiction is the core power of a court over the parties in the above case. Before a court can directly exercise power over a party or the individual, the constitution rightly requires that the party have to meet certain minimum contacts with the forum in which the court sits or join. Personal jurisdiction applies only to this case because of the state of Florida court, because the direct contract with Novelty Now states that the Chris, Matt, and Ian, are based in California cannot be taken to court for the proceedings.

B) Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to or connected to any means of settling disputes outside of the court or courtroom. This scenario typically includes the early neutral evaluation, conciliation, negation, mediation, and arbitration. The major advantage would be of Mr. Margolin can request for a huge amount of compensation for the causes of damage of having his face turning into the blue. There is a major disadvantage also, the company would lose sales, revenue structure, and its overall customer base would be significantly diminished due to this.

C) From the learnings based on the ADR, it would be in Funny Face’s best interest to make negotiate the terms that directly with Mr. Margolin, this would then hopefully help to keep the incident out of the media focus or interest and allow Funny Face to make a correction or correct the entire action of putting the PYR chemical in their own product, which was not a valid FDA approved.

D) By applying the concepts, yes, the corporate officers are more liable to these types of cases, incidents, and they are the most responsible persons. Ultimately the corporate officers are the higher-ranked authorities who approve the terms of the business strategies and the final products. Yes, they should be answerable for all the questions, allegations, and results of the decisions.

E) By identifying the classification of crimes in the texts, any potential criminal activities, or acts by Funny Face or Novelty Now. Misusing the guidelines and making of the products with ingredients that are not at all approved as they did with PYR is not on the positive note or acceptable by law.

F) According to the criminal law, while considering the executing a crime such as using a non-FDA approved ingredients in the product is a must punishable act and covered under the law. Chris directed Novelty Now to make or substitute PYR for the compound in Novelty Now’s main original formula all to increase the profit margin of the business.

G) By the process of WPH, of ethical decision making to evaluate any ethical issues. The three guidelines of ethical decision-making to evaluate ethical issues are:

i. W – (Who) – The Stakeholders
a. Consumers
b. Owners
c. Investors
d. Management
e. Employees
ii. P – (Purpose) – The Values
a. Freedom
b. Security
c. Justice
d. Efficiency
iii. H – (How) – The Guidelines
a. Public Disclosure
b. Universalize
c. Golden Rule

By above all, the full ethical issue for this case would be directly misleading the consumer by not at disclosing the PYR as an added ingredient of the product, there was no way of efficiency and with all of the strategies and marketing that was done, there was no direction of public disclosure.