Business Law Question

Before you answer this question, please review your answers on the midterm and compare them to the model answers.

Question: what grade would you give yourself on the midterm revision? Why? Please write at least 100 words in answer to this question.

2.At the start of the semester, I told you that we would learn about how our legal system shapes and informs the decisions that business professionals make daily. Do you feel that  this has been true so far? Please explain your answer with specific examples.  Please write at least 200 words in answer to this question.

3.If the class ended today, what grade would give yourself overall? Note – this it not the same as the question about the midterm. Will you do anything differently during the second half of the semester week to give yourself the best opportunity to meet the learning goals? Please write at least 100 words in answer to these questions

Model Answer

This model answer was written by a student in a previous course. Please review it and compare your answer to this one.  Your answer doesn’t have to be identical but it should cover the material. I’ve highlighted in bold the key words in the model answer – if these don’t appear in your answer, please ask yourself why. Please don’t share the model answers with anyone who hasn’t take the exam yet.

Is Jules v. Owner a civil or a criminal lawsuit?

This is a civil lawsuit because no one is alleging that owner committed a crime. Rather, Jules alleges that Owner violated a civil law, specifically the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The remedy that Jules is seeking also shows us that this is a civil case and not a criminal case. If it were a criminal case, the remedy would be to put the Owner into jail and/or for the government to fine the Owner.

In the lawsuit, who will be the plaintiff? Who will be the defendant?

The party that begins the lawsuit is called the plaintiff in a civil case. The plaintiff is a victim that has presumably suffered some sort of legal wrong that the law recognizes. The defendant is the person who has alleged committed the legal wrong. Here, Jules will be the plaintiff because she is the person that begins the lawsuit by alleging that Owner has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Does Jules have standing to bring the lawsuit?

Standing is a constitutional requirement. A simple rule for standing includes three elements: 1. Is there actual injury? 2. Is the injury fairly traceable to the defendant? 3. Is the injury redressable by a court? Here, Jules has suffered actual injury because they cannot go on vacation to Hawaii due to discrimination. Second, the injury is traceable to the defendant since Owner cancelled the reservation after finding out that Akemi’s art promoted same interracial marriage.  Third, the court can redress this injury since the Civil Rights Act gives the court that power.

Will the dispute be heard in a trial court or an appellate court?

This dispute will be heard in a trial court because almost all legal disputes start at trial where witnesses are heard and evidence is reviewed.

Will a state or a federal court will have jurisdiction in this case?

The federal court will have jurisdiction in this case. Generally the state courts jurisdiction because of the the wide array of subject areas regulated by state law.  Federal court subject matter jurisdiction is generally limited to cases involving a federal question; any case involving a federal law or the federal Constitution gives rise to subject matter jurisdiction in federal courts. Since this case involves a federal law, specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal court will have jurisdiction.

Who will win the lawsuit, Jules or the Owner?

The issue here is whether Owner violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by cancelling Akemi’s reservation. The relevant rule of law is that Civil Rights Act of 1964, which forbids discrimination by places of public accommodation if their operations affected interstate commerce.  The most relevant case is Heart of Atlanta Motel. In that case, the Motel filed a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional, arguing that Congress lacked the authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law. The Supreme Court held the law to be constitutional. And, based on the evidence that 75 percent of the motel’s clients came from out of state, the Court found that the business had an “effect” on interstate commerce. Based on this, the Court rules against the Motel. 

Here, Jules will argue that Owner’s actions were impermissible following the precedence in Heart of Atlanta Motel. This case is similar because a rental condo is also a “place of public accommodation” similar to a motel. Based on the evidence in this case, a majority of the motel’s clients came from out of state so the condo does have an “effect” on interstate commerce.  So, the Civil Rights Act applies. And, the owner admitted that she discriminated because she was against interracial marriage. So, the Heart of Atlanta caseapplies to prevent race based discrimination.

However, Owner will argue that she has a moral and familial reason for denying access to the condo and thus she is not discriminating in a way that the law prevents.  I don’t believe the court will rule that this discrimination is legal since it violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In conclusion, Owner violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when she cancelled Akemi and Jules’ reservation based on her objection to same sex marriage.  Thus, Jules will win the lawsuit.

Did Jules and Owner form a valid contract?

The issue here is whether Jules and Owner formed a valid contract. The law states that for a contract to be valid there must be an offer, acceptance, consideration.

OfferAn offer is an intent communicated to the offeree with clear and definite terms. When Owner listed the condo on zrbo.com her terms were clear and definite because she listed the condo, the dates it was available, and the price. Thus, the listing would likely be viewed as an offer.AcceptanceTo have acceptance, the offeree must communicate clear agreement to the terms of the offer. When Akemi paid the down payment and completed the reservation, Akemi clearly communicated agreement to the clear and definite terms.ConsiderationConsideration is a bargained-for exchange/legal detriment. Akemi promised to be pay Owner and she gave the down payment as proof of her intent. And Owner accepted the down payment and the reservation. Thus, there is valid consideration for both parties.

Owner will argue that she returned the down payment with interest, so no harm actually occurred to Akemi and Jules.  Yet, Akemi and Jules will counter argue that they were unable to use the refund to get another condo since none were available and thus they did suffer harm in addition the harm of being discriminated against.

In conclusion, this is a valid contract. So, Owner is liable to Akemi and Jules if Owner fails to rent the condo to them.