Legal system, Criminal law and Ethics

LEGAL SYSTEM, CRIMINAL LAW AND ETHICS 4

Personal jurisdiction applies in Margolin’s lawsuit. This refers tothe court’s authority over parties involved in this case. SinceMargolin has minimal contact with the other parties he is suing asthe communication was done over the internet, the court has authorityto exercise power. In the context of state and federal jurisdiction,Funny Face has been involved in fraud due to the use of a chemicalthat has not been authorized by FDA. Hence, Margolin can file a caseagainst the company seeking compensation. Due to the lack of minimumcontacts long arms principles do not apply in the case.

Kinds of ADR suitable in the case are negotiation and arbitration.Negotiation is a method of solving conflict that does not involvecourt proceedings. An advantage is that negotiation restricts theparties in a disagreement, to merely the involved. The demerit isthat when the parties have contradictory perspectives, it isdifficult to advance with finding a resolution. Arbitration ischaracterized by the inclusion of a third party to resolvedisagreements amid differing parties. The merit is that a neutralparty decides on what is best for those in dispute. The demeritderives from an inability to decide on an arbitrator, leading to moreconflict between disputing parties.

Margolin will prefer negotiation because it will solve the disputefast and easily. It also makes it possible for him to claimreimbursement for the damage. Funny Face and Novelty now preferarbitration because it will result in more partiality for bothparties. In addition, arbitration controls the amount of compensationMargolin seeks.

Corporations can be held answerable for criminal actions. Undercriminal law, it is possible to differentiate between a crime and theoffender (Fletcher, 1998). The idea of crime begins with law andprogresses to determine if behavior impedes with a specific rule. Inthis case the crime has been committed of selling a product notapproved by FDA. The offender is the manufacturer, hence making themliable for their wrongdoing.

The criminal act committed by “Funny Face/Novelty Now” iscorporate crime. This is because as a company involved in themanufacture and sale of the aftershave lotion, they have knowinglyused PYR. In addition, it is a substance that is unapproved by FDA.It is a crime to engage in the sale of products to consumers whileknowing that they will cause harm to the user. Further, Novelty Nowdoes not inform consumers of the risks associated with using thelotion.

The criminal liability on the manufacturer and distributor of thelotion derives from selling a product that comprises of a chemicalemulsifier that has not been approved by FDA. This is because theparties involved intentionally risk the health of their targetconsumers. Using a chemical substance that is not approved is acriminal offence, more so considering that there has already been avictim. The criminal charge derives from the intention of causingharm to consumers.

Using the WPH procedure, W – who refers to the customers thatpurchase the lotion, P -product refers to the intention of themanufacturer and distributor to get maximum output from selling thelotion and H – how is the process used in making the lotion (Meiners,Ringleb &amp Edwards, 2000). The ethical issues apparent inthe case are that Novelty Now is more concerned about making salesthan the effect their product will have on consumers. The action ofusing a chemical that is unapproved affects the consumers.

References

Fletcher, G. P. (1998).&nbspBasicConcepts of Criminal Law.New York: Oxford University Press.

Meiners, R. E., Ringleb, A. H., &ampEdwards, F. L. (2000).&nbspThelegal environment of business. Cincinnati,Ohio: West Legal Studies in Business.