APUS The Legal and Ethical Issues in Management Question

QUESTION 1Read the scenario and answer the questions in a 350-400 words or more
Ted DeWiz has a classic muscle car that he fixed up and has enjoyed drag racing. He has kept it well
maintained. Much as he loves the car, Ted finds himself in need of cash. He parks the car on his front
yard, with a large sign on the windshield that says, “Cherry of a classic car, For Sale $4,500 or Best Offer.
AS-IS.”
Marlee Cheree drives by and sees the car. She is immediately enamored and stops to look at it. Marlee is
sure the car is underpriced. When she knocks on Ted’s front door, there is no response; she looks
around, and decides nobody is home, so she takes her business card and on the back writes, ” I will pay
you $5,000 cash for your classic car. I will return later when you are home.” She signs her name, and
dates it, including the time, and slips the card into the screen on the front door.
After Marlee leaves, about a half hour later, Ted returns. He does not see Marlee’s card because he
never uses his front door, only the side or back doors. A few minutes after he is home, his buddy, Dave
Dancer, pulls in to look at the car. Dave has always liked the car. Dave offers Ted the $4,500 asking price,
which Ted accepts. The two men shake hands on the deal. Ted goes in the house to get the car title
while Dave writes out a check to Ted for $4,500.
As Ted comes out of the house with the title in his hand, and just before Dave hands him the check,
Marlee pulls in. She has an envelope of $5000 cash for the car. Ted says to Marlee,“sorry, but I have just
sold the car to Dave here.” Marlee objects and says she already offered the $5000 earlier.
When Ted says, “No, you didn’t,” she marches him to the front door and shows him her card.
“There was my offer, I already left you before. You weren’t home and now I have the money right
here,” she said.
Ted turns to Dave, and says, “Sorry, there was already another offer; I just didn’t know about it, so I ‘m
going to sell the car to Marlee for the $5000.”
Dave objects, stating, “You just said you already sold it to ME. We shook hands on it. You cannot back
out now just because some card was floating around no one knew about. She wasn’t even here!”
While the three of them stand in the yard arguing, Joe Don Townerbucks drives in the yard. He gets out
of his Mercedes, looks at the muscle car, and moseys over to the three arguing people. He asks, “who
owns that hot rod for sale?”
“I do,” says Ted.
“No, I do,” says Dave.
“It’s mine,” snaps Marlee.
“I’ll pay whichever of you, $8,000 for that car,” says Townerbucks, “provided the engine starts.”
Ted answers, “Of course it starts. I accept your offer.”
Dave hollers, “NO! That car is no longer for sale! I bought it!” (Waving the check in Ted’s face.)
Marlee stomps over to the muscle car and sits on the hood, grabbing the sign off it. “It’s my car. I was
here before all of you and I have real money in hand.” she yells.
Ted says to Joe Don,” Pay no attention to them. I have the title — right here. Let’s start the car.”
YOU BE THE JUDGE.
DECIDE WHO GETS THE CAR. PREPARE YOUR DISCUSSION ESSAY USING THE ABOVE FACTS, DISCUSSING
THE FOLLOWING:
What are issues you see here?
Applying the principles of contract law, who gets the car, if anyone, and for how much? Explain your
reasoning using the definitions and principles of contract provided in Lessons, required readings and any
other research you do.
What is the situation if Ted (or Dave…. or ? …..whoever) accepts Townerbucks’ offer and the car doesn’t
start? Does “As Is” still apply?
QUESTION 2
Read the thread, Listen to the podcast and answer the questions in a 350-400 words or more.
Background: Affirmative action was first instituted by President John F. Kennedy by an Executive Order
signed on March 6, 1961. This initiated a requirement that federally funded contracts and programs
actively engage plans for employing minorities. Affirmative action grew over time under subsequent
Presidential orders and legislation to include women along with minorities for their active preferential
placement in higher education enrollment as well as in employment. The purpose of affirmative action is
to level the playing field for applicants by opening opportunity to classes of otherwise qualified
individuals subjected to discrimination in hiring and education, due to a social legacy of racial, gender,
and ethnic prejudice. Nearly 60 years since JFK’s Executive Order, many now argue that affirmative
action has served its purpose and that its cumbersome administrative requirements are a burden that
schools and employers no longer need to bear. Others argue that the deep prejudices underlying the
purpose of affirmative action continue to plague American society and justify its continuing importance
to promote and ensure diversity in society’s critical settings of education and workforce.
LISTEN TO THE FOLLOWING PODCAST FOR PREPARINGTHIS
DISCUSSION: https://play.acast.com/s/25bd0a94-f8bb-481b-b51e-78ca4a4ae98f/9abb6539-a64e-48c08a6e-faea23fd814e
For your Discussion: Take a Position For or Against Affirmative Action:
Research and summarize the essential requirements of affirmative action. Where, how, and why is it
applied?
Consider the pros and cons of affirmative action based on your review of the required readings and your
own research. Include case law in your analysis.
Take a position either pro or against continuation of affirmative action as a legal requirement of covered
employers and universities. Present your position and discuss your reasons for your position. This should
be more than just a personal opinion. Support your analysis with examples, which can include objective
personal experience and observations.
QUESTION 3
Read and Answer questions in 350-400 words or more
Background: Securities violations are the subject of review and enforcement of the Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC), a federal agency. Two types of violations found in SEC cases are: (1)
spoofing, and (2) insider trading.
Spoofing is a deceptive trading practice to manipulate the market where traders place fake orders to
trick others into trading at either inflated or depressed prices, resulting in losses to the deceived
purchasers and profits to the spoofing trader. For further information on spoofing.
Insider trading is buying or selling on the basis of personal knowledge the trader has or acquires by
benefit of a relationship not available or known to the general trading public. For further information on
insider trading, go to.
PROMPT: For this discussion, research further, either spoofing or insider trading SEC violations. Find and
share a case example no more than 5 years old in SEC cases (do NOT use the spoofing case already cited
in the above press release) that illustrates the practice you have selected. In your initial Discussion post,
cover the following in reporting the case:
Briefly explain spoofing or insider trading (whichever one you have chosen) and why it is illegal (e.g.,
effect on business, society);
What is the specific statute and/or regulation violated by this conduct?
Identify the SEC case you have selected and provide a link to the case;
Describe the violation illustrated by the case, e.g. Who are the parties? What did the violator(s) do that
constituted spoofing or insider trading? Who was harmed by the violation?
What is the ethical framework you observe was followed by the violator(s) in committing the illegal
conduct? (Explain.)
Explain how the case was resolved, e.g., What happened to the violator(s)? What were the penalties
levied against the violator(s), if any?
Do you believe the result is a just resolution of the violation? Why or why not?
Share any other thoughts you have on this topic.
Locate SEC Cases here: https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases.htm