Reference no: EM13865268

Briefing Paper-

Part 1. Critical Legal Thinking

Instructions: Read American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League Case

Questions-

a. Critical Legal Thinking- Do firms that enter into a joint venture avoid the reach of Section 1 of the Sherman Act?

b. Ethics- Do you think there was any unethical conduct in this case?

c. Contemporary Business- Does the decision in this case have any consequences in determining whether entities have engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy that violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act?

Part 2. Law Case with Answers

Instructions: Read United States v. Capital City Foods, Inc.

Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on how much cooked insect and rodent parts are you willing to have in your butter.

Provide convincing arguments for both sides of your recommendations.

Part 3. Critical Legal Thinking Cases

Instructions: Read Sections 24.7 Endangered Species; 25.1 Adverse Possession; 25.5 Adverse Possession; 22.4 Resale Price Maintenance; and 23.7 Fair Debt Collection.

Sections-

22.4 Resale Price Maintenance- The Union Oil Company (Union Oil) was a major oil company that operated a nationwide network of franchised service station dealers that sold Union Oil gasoline and other products throughout the United States. The franchise dealers leased their stations from Union Oil; they also signed a franchise agreement to purchase gasoline and other products on assignment from Union Oil. Both the lease and the franchise agreement were one-year contracts that Union Oil could cancel if a dealer did not adhere to the contract. The franchise agreement provided that all dealers must adhere to the retail price of gasoline as set by Union Oil. The retail price fixed by Union Oil for gasoline during the period in question was 29.9 cents per gallon. Simpson, a franchised dealer, violated this provision in the franchise agreement and sold gasoline at 27.9 cents per gallon to meet competitive prices. Because of this, Union Oil canceled Simpson's lease and franchise agreement. Simpson sued Union Oil, alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Who wins? Simpson v. Union Oil Company, 377 U.S. 13, 84 S.Ct. 1051, 12 L.Ed.2d 98, Web 1964 U.S. Lexis 2378 (Supreme Court of the United States).

23.7 Fair Debt Collection- Stanley M. Juras was a student at Montana State University (MSU). During his four years at MSU, Juras took out several student loans from the school, under the National Direct Student Loan program. By the time Juras left MSU, he owed the school over $5,000. Juras defaulted on these loans, and MSU assigned the debt to Aman Collection Services, Inc. (Arran), for purposes of collection. Aman obtained a judgment against Juras in a Montana state court for $5,015 on the debt and $1,920 in interest and attorneys' fees. Juras, who at the time lived in California, still refused to pay these amounts. Subsequently, a vice president of Aman, Mr. Gloss, telephoned Juras twice in California before 8:00 A.M. Pacific Standard Time. Gloss told Juras that if he did not pay the debt, he would not receive a college transcript. Juras sued Aman, claiming that the telephone calls violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Gloss testified at trial that he made the calls before 8:00 A.M. because he had forgotten the difference in time zones between California and Aman's offices in South Dakota. Who wins? Juras v. Aman Collection Services, Inc., 829 F.2d 739, Web 1987 U.S. App. Lexis 12888 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit)

24.7 Endangered Species -The red-cockaded wood-pecker is a small bird that lives almost exclusively in old pine forests throughout the southern United States. Its survival depends on a very specialized habitat of pine trees that are at least thirty, if not sixty, years old, in which they build nests and forage for insects. The population of this bird decreased substantially as pine forests were destroyed by clear-cutting. The U.S. secretary of the interior has named the red-cockaded wood¬pecker an endangered species.
The U.S. Forest Service manages federal forests and is charged with duties to provide recreation, protect wildlife, and provide timber. To accomplish the charge of providing timber, the Forest Service often leases national forest lands to private companies for lumbering. When the Forest Service proposed to lease several national forests in Texas, where the red-cockaded woodpecker lives, to private companies for lumbering, the Sierra Club, an environmental organization, sued. The Sierra Club sought to enjoin the Forest Service from leasing these national forests for lumbering. Who wins? Sierra Club v. Lyng, Secretary of Agriculture, 694 F.Supp. 1260, Web 1988 U.S. Dist. Lexis 9203 (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas)

25.1 Adverse Possession- Edward and Mary Shaughnessey purchased a 16-acre tract in St. Louis County, Missouri. Subsequently, they subdivided 12 acres into eighteen lots offered for sale and retained possession of the remaining 4-acre tract. Thirteen years later, Charles and Elaine Witt purchased lot 12, which is adjacent to the 4-acre tract. The Wins constructed and moved into a house on their lot. The next year, they cleared an area of land that ran the length of their property and extended 40 feet onto the 4-acre tract. The Witts constructed a pool and a deck, planted a garden, made a playground for their children, set up a dog run, and built a fence along the edge of the property line, which included the now-disputed property. Neither the Wins nor the Shaughnesseys realized that the Wilts had encroached on the Shaughnesseys' property.

Twenty years later, the Shaughnesseys sold the 4-acre tract to Thomas and Rosanne Miller. When a survey showed the Wins' encroachment, the Millers demanded that the Witts remove the pool and cease using the prop¬erty. When the Witts refused to do so, the Millers sued to quiet title. The Witts defended, arguing that they had obtained title to the disputed property through adverse possession. Have the Wins established the necessary requirements to acquire the disputed property by adverse possession? Witt v. Miller, 845 S.W.2d 665, Web 1993 Mo.App. Lexis 20 (Court of Appeals of Missouri)

25.5 Adverse Possession- Joseph and Helen Naab purchased a tract of land in a subdivision of Williamstown, West Virginia. At the time of purchase, there were both a house and a small concrete garage on the property. Evidence showed that the garage had been erected sometime prior to twenty years earlier by one of the Naabs' predecessors in title. Two years after the Naabs bought their property, Roger and Cynthia Nolan purchased a lot contiguous to that owned by the Naabs. The following year, the Nolans had their property surveyed. The survey indicated that one corner of the Naabs' garage encroached 1.22 feet onto the Nolans' property and the other corner encroached 0.91 feet over the property line. The Nolans requested that the Naabs remove the garage from their property. When the Naabs refused, a lawsuit ensued. Who wins? Naab v. Nolan, 174 W.Va. 390, 327 S.E.2d 151, Web 1985 W.Va. Lexis 476 (Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia)

Check the decisions of the highest appellate courts, if a case is cited, for each fact pattern.

Brief the facts of the case and assume your boss is seeking your opinions on whether each of the subjects affect business in the United States and if so, provide the worst and best case scenarios.

Part 4. Ethics Case

Instructions: Read Section Ethics

Questions-

1. What is a vertical merger? What requirements must be proven to find a vertical merger illegal?

2. Did the du ponts act ethically in this case?

3. Did Du pont's ownership of 23 percent of the stock of General Motors constitute a vertical merger that gave Du Pont illegal preferences over competitors in the sale of finishes and fabrics to General Motors and therefore violate Section 7 of the Clayton Act?