Running Head: CASE STUDY ONE
Milestone One: Case Study One
Southern New Hampshire University
CASE STUDY ONE
2
Personal jurisdiction refers to the power of a court over the parties involved, this means that the party must have a certain minimum contact with the state in uestion! "n this matter there are three states involved, an "nternet compan y #$unny $ace% &ased in California which is manufactured in $lorida &y the company Novelty Now "nc! provided a consumer in New 'or( 'or( with with a faulty product! )he product in uestion was an aftershave lotion which had an adverse side effect, due to the replacement of a (ey in*redient for another #P'+% that is not $approved, to the customer in the state of New 'or(! 'or(! -ccordin* to the contract &etween $unny $ace and manufacturer Novelty Now all the the disputes must *o throu*h throu*h the state of $lorida! $lorida! "n the scenario this case would &e under the state of $lorida jurisdiction in accordance with contract &etween &oth companies! Su&ject matter jurisdiction means the power a court has to hear certain cases and minimum contact refers to a nonresident interaction or contact with the state where the lawsuit is &rou*ht! Here the plaintiff, Mr! onald Mar*olin and his company, is suin* the manufacturer Novelty Now for ne*li*ence howeve r, it does not apply &ecause there is not conclusive understandin* of what the minimum contact throu*h the "nternet is! )he parties involved in the case have the option to a*ree to an alternate dispute resolution that may have its advanta*es over liti*ation! )he alternative dispute resolution method, or -+, is usin* other methods to solve le*al conflicts as opposed to usin* liti*ation! )here are several methods, however in this case it was stated on the $unny $ace company.s co mpany.s we&site we&site that claims must &e resolved throu*h ar&itration! -r&itration has many pros and cons for e/ample the company $unny $ace would lose credi&ility and would suffer dama*e to its reputation if the incident were &rou*ht out pu&licly so privacy is a stron* point of ar&itration for the company in uestion! - con, especially in this scenario, would &e the company.s a&ility to hide this dispute from the pu&lic therefor lettin* $unny $ace continue sellin* its product with the harmful
CASE STUDY ONE
3
chemical P'+! -r&itration is very cost efficient efficient and it is a neutral party with no &iases towards towards the issue! $or Mr! onald onald Mar*olin ar&itration is &eneficial rather rather than see(in* liti*ation and incurrin* *reat costs for him or his company, the parties can choose an ar&itrator who is an e/pert in the issue! )here is much fle/i&ility when ma(in* a decision however it is rather difficult to appeal an award made &y ar&itration therefor a decision can &e made that mi*ht &e seen as an injustice for e/ample, a decision where $unny $ace does not have to pay for dama*es caused to Mr! onald Mar*olin or perhaps the reward does not fully cover Mr! Mar*olin.s medical &ills! 0i(ewise, ar&itration can &e advanta*eous to the company as they can use it to (eep their dispute private, come to a definite solution, and settle out of court! Novelty Now "nc! would *reatly &enefit from usin* ar&itration since they (nowin*ly used a potentially harmful chemical that indeed had adverse side effects, as in this case, turnin* Mr! Mar*olin.s Mar*olin.s face &lue! )his error would definitely hurt their &usiness and credi&ility as well as $unn y $ace who directed them to use said chemical, they would suffer a *reater impact as it could potentially harm their entire customer &ase! )he privacy surroundin* ar&itration is &eneficial for the company at fault, even if the pu&lic mi*ht suffer if the error was (ept u nder wraps, and of course the cost would &e &ut a fraction of what liti*ation would have reuired! )he parties involved can also use a third party to assist in discussin* their differences in the matter and wor( out a solution, in other words mediation! Mediation can &e used in order to assist in comin* to an a*reea&le resolution to the dama*es caused &y their product produ ct to Mr! Mar*olin, althou*h he mi*ht want to see( criminal char*es for a product that could harm a *reat deal of its users, &ut in the lon* run it really does not provide any an y &enefits to the case! "n mediation the third party does not determine wh o is ri*ht or wron* nor ma(e a decision and one side may &e predisposed to not come c ome to a reasona&le solution, such as Mr! Mar*olin Mar*olin demandin*
CASE STUDY ONE
4
to &e compensated an e/u&erant amount of money and the company refusin* to pay the amount therefor ne*otiations mi*ht fall apart! Here, the founders of $unny $ace Chris, Matt and "an committed fraud, the use of intentional deception for financial or personal *ain! )he fact is that Chris intentionally and (nowin*ly altered the recipe for their product with an essentially harmful chemical! Novelty Now "nc! is also at fault for a*reein* to create a product that mi*ht harm its users users however, the fact is that it was not a sure thin* that the chemical was *oin* cause an y adverse effect! )his incident is a crime and &oth parties should &e held responsi&le! )he fact that Chris chan*ed the recipe to use a non1$- approved in*redient is the first criminal action! Secondly, when the manufacturer a*reed to the chan*es of the recipe, as a manufacturer they must (now which chemicals are $- approved and suita&le for use! )hey completely disre*arded that and proceeded with production not (now what type of issues it could cause, that in itself is ne*li*ence, therefor a crime! )he 2ho, Purpose, How framewor( e/ists to assist in ma(in* ethical &usiness decisions, in this case Who &ein* Who &ein* the consumers who are to &e potentially affected &y the same issue, as it did to Mr! Mar*olin! Mar*olin! 3y ma(in* that decision dec ision since they wanted lower manufacturin* cost and that applies to the Purpose the Purpose element, they wanted efficiency, efficiency, which definitely &ac(fired! "n this scenario the parties at fault failed to ma(e ethical decisions, even if it was to reduce cost, co st, in the end &y see(in* a way to save money has resulted &ein* more e/pensive than ma(in* ethical decisions!
CASE STUDY ONE
5
+eferences
3ruhl, -! #4556%! Su&ject Matter 7urisdiction! +etrieved from http:88scholarship!law!wm!edu8c*i8viewcontent!c*i9article46;<=conte/tfacpu&s=sei1 redir;=refererhttps>?->4$>4$scholar!*oo*le!com>4$scholar>?$>?su&ject >43matter>43jurisdiction>4@hl>?en>4@asAsdt>?5>4@asAvis>?;>4@oi >?scholart>4@sa>?B>4@ved >?5C3w*Mw-DoEChM"hdA@*ae0/w"Ei@*eCh4FwwFlGsearch>44su&ject >45matter>45jurisdiction>44
3oldon, +! M! #45;;%! 0on*1arm statutes and internet jurisdiction! The jurisdiction! The Business Lawyer, 67 #;%, #;%, ?;?1?45! +etrieved from http:88eFpro/y!snhu!edu8lo*in9urlhttp:88search!prouest!com8docview8<4<56I@;9 accountid?6?
