business law chapter01

8/14/2019 business law chapter01

1/20

The Legal Environment of Business

A Critical Thinking Approach6thEdition

Nancy K. Kubasek

Bartley A. Brennan

M. Neil Browne

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 1-1


2/20

CHAPTER 1

Critical Thinking andLegal Reasoning



3/20

Objectives1. The Importance of Critical Thinking

2. A Critical Thinking Model3. The Critical Thinking Steps

4. Using Critical Thinking to Make Legal

Reasoning Come Alive

5. Applying the Critical Thinking Approach



4/20

Legal ReasoningReasoning with

a PurposeExample:

Do tobacco manufacturers have liability for the

deaths of smokers?

Conclusion - A position or

stance on a particular issue

Example: Yesaccountability for their product

Nofreedom of choice



5/20

The 8 Steps to Legal Reasoning



6/20

Critical thinking focuses on the

quality of someones reasoning

Definition:

Understand the argument

Apply evaluative criteria

Assess the quality of the reasoning



7/20

The Demand for Better Critical

Thinking Skills:

Competitive Pressure

Business Ethics

Understanding the Law



8/20

A Critical Thinking CaseUnited States of America v. Martha Stewart and

Peter Bacanovic United States District Court for the Southern District

of New York 2004



9/20

Facts: Martha Stewart sold stocks on 12/27/01

ImClone announced FDA rejection on

12/28/01

Stewart and Bacanovic convicted

Expert witness accused of perjury

Perjury should be grounds for new trial



10/20

Issues:

When can a court grant a new trial?

Does perjury of a witness mean that

defendants should have a new trial?

Do the regulations associated with Rule 33

and relevant case law permit the defendant

to have a new trial?



11/20

Reasons and Conclusion: Reasons: Under Rule 33, perjury is not sufficient basis

for new trial, unless:

The government knew about it.

The perjured testimony was material. Without the testimony, acquittal was likely.

Conclusion:

Defendants did not show evidence of these conditions.

Jury would have still convicted.

Motion for a new trial is denied.



12/20

Rules of law cited in the Martha Stewart

case:

Rule 33 and regulations

United States v. Wallach

Case law



13/20

Courts can grant a new trial if:

it is in the interest of justice or

reasonable likelihood (probability that the

alleged perjury could have affected the verdict)

AmbiguityCapable of having

more than one meaning



14/20

Clarifying the Primary Ethical Norms

FORMS

To act without restriction from rules imposed by others.

To possess the capacity or resources to act as one wishes.

To provide the order in business relationships that permits

predictable plans to be effective

To be safe from those wishing to interfere with your property rights To achieve the psychological condition of self-confidence such that

risks are welcomed

To receive the product of your labor

To provide resources in proportion to need

To treat all humans identically, regardless of class, race, gender, age, and so on

To possess anything that someone else was willing to grant you

To maximize the amount of wealth in our society.

To get the most from a particular input.

To minimize costs.

ETHICAL NORM

Freedom

Security

Justice

Efficiency



15/20

Martha Stewart Case

Analogies

Is the strength of the independent evidence

found in theStewartcase equivalent to that in

the Wallachcase?



16/20

Missing Information

Was the jurys verdict affected by the

perjured testimony?

What was the congressional intent behindRule 33?

Are there any similar cases in which the

court has ruled differently?



17/20

Using Critical Thinking to Make

Legal Reasoning Come Alive Facts: Just the Relevant Facts

Issue: The Question of the Case

Reasons and Conclusion: The Answer

Relevant Rules of Law: The Legal Context

Ambiguity: The Limits of Words

Ethical Norms: The Basis for Evaluation

Legal Analogies: The Role of Precedent

Missing Information: Practical LimitsCopyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 1-17


18/20

Applying the Critical Thinking Approach

Use systematic, methodical approach

Apply to all cases you readApply also to other news and editorial pieces



19/20

Objectives

1. The Importance of Critical Thinking

2. A Critical Thinking Model

3. The Critical Thinking Steps

4. Using Critical Thinking to Make Legal

Reasoning Come Alive

5. Applying the Critical Thinking Approach



20/20

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,

mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written

permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc.Publishing as Prentice Hall


business law chapter01

Documents

Transcript of business law chapter01