Court

The Question of Female Citizenship Catherine Tupper In the early 1800’s a young man by the name of James Martin was denied by the lower court when he claimed that his deceased mother’s property in the United States was confiscated from his family. After being denied for an appeal in the lower court, James appealed his decision to the Supreme Judicial Court. The problem at conflict in this case was whether or not James mother, Anna, was defined as a feme-covert or as a citizen of The United States. This court case was called Martin v. Massachusetts.

According to the Source, in eighteenth-century Anglo-America a married women, by law, was known as a feme-covert. A woman considered a feme-covert was completely covered by her husband and had no recognized legal identity. She had no right to buy, sell or own property independently of her husband. In the case of Martin v. Massachusetts, the plaintiff James Martin presented the fact that his late mother left the United States because his father did. In other words, Anna had no choice due to the feme-covert law which states that the man speaks and acts for the wife.

The argument made by the ter-tenants was that Anna had the right to stay and claim citizenship due to the fact that all of the land owned by her husband was indeed hers because it was passed down by her father. In the end, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that Anna Martin was bound by her marriage vows and had to follow her husband to England. The court reversed the confiscation and the land was returned to the Martin family. Due to the fact that the confiscation of Anna Martin’s property was reversed, the justices stated that women could not act independently of her husband in political or economic matters.

There are 2 elements present for this rule to happen. They are found in the case of Edwards v/s Halliwell. It is the proper plaintiff in an action in respect of a wrong done to a company is prima facia the company itself. Where the alleged wrong is a transaction which might be made binding on a company and all its members. No individual member is allowed to maintain an action in respect of that matter. This means that whenever there is a transaction within the company and there has been a decision by the board (I. e. he majority), any individual member alone will not be able to go to court. In the case of Foss v/s Harbottle: There were 2 members (shareholders) of the Victoria Park Company who brought an action against the company’s 5 directors and promoters alleging that they had misapplied the company’s assets and had improperly mortgaged its properties. The shareholders wanted the directors to make good the losses sustained by the company. The court stated that: The injury was against the whole company and the company was the proper person to sue and not the individual members.

The second proposition came from this case called the majority rule: Mozley v/s Alston  2 shareholders tried unsuccessfully to restrain 4 directors of the company from acting as such when they should have retired under the articles. The court refused to permit the shareholder to bring their action. The court had in mind that if the thing that one is complaining about is the thing in a company that a majority is entitled to do, then there is no need for litigation.

Advantages to this rule:

• It is more convenient that a company should sue in respect of a wrong done.
• It eliminates wasteful litigation because there is a process of passing resolution in a company. If there is a problem that can be resolved by majority, there is no need to go to the court.
• It prevents vexatious actions started by troublesome minority trying to harass the company.

Disadvantage to this rule: The company is the proper person to sue but the company can only act through its human agents (I. e. the board, shareholders). Usually, the board may well be the people committing a wrong.

There are 4 exceptions to this rule:

• Where the act complaint of is illegal or is ultra vares.In the case of Prudential Assurance Co. Ltd v/s Newman Industries (No. 2)
• The court of appeal explains that where the wrongful act in issue is ultra vares, the rule does not operate because the majority of members can’t confirm the transactions. If any decision that was taken was taken outside the powers that the majority has, then the minority can bring an action as opposed to the rule.
• It has been seen that an action by a shareholder to recover money or on behalf of the company in respect of an ultra vares or an illegal transaction could be undertaken by personal actions. In the case of Smith v/s Croft (No. ) In this case, it has been decided that where what is sought is compensation for the company for the loss caused by the transaction. The wrong is done to the company, so the company is the proper plaintiff. The result out of the transaction caused a loss towards the company.
• Even though it was an illegal transaction, the loss was caused to the company. The shareholders can bring an action but an action called the derivative action (done on behalf of the company).

Where the matter in issue requires the sanction of the special majority or there has been non-compliance with the special procedure. An individual shareholder will have locus standing to sue where the act complains of is one which requires the approval of the special majority of members and such resolution has not been obtained. This covers a situation where the article of association has specified a particular procedure that must be followed in respect of a particular transaction. In the case of Edwards v/s Halliwell, 2 members successfully restraint and attempt by the delegate meeting to increase the member’s contribution without obtaining the 2/3 majority. In this case, regardless that the 2 remaining members could bring that action and eventually won on that action. In the case of Quin & Axtens Ltd v/s Salomon,

In this case, the Article of Association stated that certain transactions could not be entered without the consent of both managing director. One of the directors did not accept for a transaction but the company in a general meeting authorized the transaction without the director’s consent. ?In this case, the court allowed the individual member to enter an action and granted an injunction to the individual member prohibiting the majority from acting in breach of the article.

Case Brief:

W. O. LUCY AND J. C. LUCY v. A.

H. ZEHMER AND IDA S. ZEHMER

Facts of the Case:

After several drinks, Zehmer (D) wrote and signed a contract in which he agreed to sell his farm to Lucy (P) for $50,000. Zehmer insisted that he had been intoxicated and thought the matter was a joke, not realizing that Lucy had been serious. Zehmer was trying to get Lucy to admit to not having $50,000. Lucy claimed that he was not intoxicated and believed that Zehmer was also sober. Lucy brought suit for specific performance when Zehmer refused to complete the transaction.

The trial court ruled for Zehmer holding that Lucy had not established a right to specific performance. On appeal the Supreme Court of Virginia found that Zehmer was sober enough to know what he was doing and that his words and actions warranted a reasonable belief that a contract was intended. Question: In determining whether a party has made a valid offer, how does the court determine whether the party had the intent to contract? Holding: The Supreme Court of Virginia reversed the decision of the Circuit Court of Dinwiddie County, Virginia and stated Zehmer had signed a binding contract.

Reasoning:

The parties of a contract do not have to mentally agree to the deal. If their words or actions have the reasonable meaning of a serious business transaction, undisclosed intentions are immaterial and do not render the contract unenforceable. A contract must have a good faith offer and a good faith acceptance with terms of consideration known by each party. The court ruled that just because Zehmer had not mentally agreed to the deal, his conduct indicated to Lucy in a reasonable manner that the transaction was not a joke, and Lucy had no knowledge of Zehmer’s mental assessment.

Statement of Facts

            In the year 1998, the City of Jackson in Mississippi implemented a policy giving salary increase to all employees in the City. The purpose of the raise in compensation is to retain and attract several people who are qualified to perform functions in the City government. The plan include providing incentives for performance, maintaining competitiveness with other agencies in the public sector and ensuring equitable pay for all city employees not accounting age, race, color and even disability situations.

The case started on the questions of some police officers when the said policy was revised on May 1, 1999. The plan provided increase for the salaries of all police officers and police dispatchers on a desire to bring the starting pay of police officers in consonant with the regional level or average. The idea is that those who had less than 5 years of service received proportionately bigger increase in comparison to their last pay out than those police officers with more seniority. In other words, the police officers affected in that scheme questioned the policy on account of discrimination of age. Even there are police officers more than the age of 40 with less than 5 years tenure, there are more of them had more than 5 years in service. The petitioners of the case includes police officers who contended that compensation increase that was received in the year 1999 is a violation of Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 of otherwise known as ADEA since they were less generous to police officers more than the age 40 than to younger police officers.

Legal and Ethical Issues Statement

            The legal issue of the case is that: is it legal for the City of Jackson to revise the plan of salary increase affecting older police officers? Is it ethical for the City of Jackson to discriminate the police officers who are more than 40 years old who are affected in the revised salary increase plan for city employees?

Legally, the police officers in this case must submit a claim based on disparate-treatment claim and that submission must be legal or valid. However, the petitioners were not able to do so. Hence, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the court aquo that the police officers involved in the case failed to set forth a valid disparate-impact claim. Ethically, the treatment given to older police officers is also one way of discriminating them and giving them a point to raise the issue in this case. The adverse effect to them of the revised compensation plan discredited their equal efforts in serving the city of Jackson.

Applicable Legal Rules

            Like Title VII with respect to all protected classes except race, the ADEA provides an affirmative defense to liability where age is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the particular business. (§4(f)(1), 81 Stat. 603; Cf. Civil Rights Act of 1964, §703(e), 78 Stat. 256). Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, it shall not be unlawful to perform any of the prohibited activities in §§703(a)—(d)] on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business enterprise (Cornell: Smith et. al. v. City of Jackson). Another applicable legal rule for this case is the one found in ADEA wherein it shall be illegal for an employer to limit, segregate, or classify his employees in whatever way which would deprive or tend to deprive any person of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such age of the person (Cornell: Smith et. al. v. City of Jackson).

Support for Ethical Issues

            Since the case admits that there is a disparate-impact theory available for the police officers, the law also supported the said fact as implemented by the Congress interpreting that the ADEA could authorize a relief on a disparate-impact theory (Cornell: Smith et. al. v. City of Jackson). In addition to that, there may be no mention of the disparate-treatment theory on the initial regulations; the said claim can also be permitted as long as the employer relies of factors other than age. This will only mean that it is unethical to discriminate police officers on account of age. The standard of conduct that the employer must follow is to avoid discrimination as to age since it will adversely affect the individuals involved in a given circumstance.

Observation

            The decision of this case necessarily points out to the fact that the decision of the city to provide larger increase to lower group of police officers for the aim of bringing salaries in connection with that of the surrounding police forces was a decision based on a reasonable factor aside from age that counts to the legitimate purpose of the city to retain police officers. The dissenting opinion of Justice Rehnquist actually points out to the denial of the certiorari thereby weighing the case for the benefit of applying disparate-treatment theory properly. However, we should keep in mind that there is only discrimination when the sole factor that the employer focused in increasing a salary discriminately is age. When the employer accounts other factors aside from age, then there is no discrimination. This what happened in this case wherein the police officers who filed this case relied only on the basis of age to prove presence of discrimination when the City of Jackson legitimately aimed to retain most of the police officers. The impact of this case on future employment demands employers to see to it that there should be no discrimination on the basis of age.

            Finally, the City of Jackson did not actually discriminate the police officers who filed this case. There is no question on the purpose of the city to raise the salary of police officers in order to match those in surrounding communities. The Supreme Court may not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals that the disparate-treatment theory of recovery is not available on account of ADEA, its judgment was however affirmed.

Case Analysis B

David Weber vs. Strippitt

Statement of Facts

            This case is between David Weber and Strippitt, Incorporated which is about disability issue. The Plaintiff of this case is Weber who suffered heart problems and was informed by the defendant to transfer to other place. Due to Weber’s refusal to transfer, he was terminated from his job. Later on, he instituted a case against the company under the Americans Disability Act as well as the Minnesota Human Rights Act alleging among others that he was discriminated on account of age and actual disability. The jury was able to come up with a findings that for the defendants there is no discrimination on age and actual disability so that the trial court granted a motion for judgment as a matter of law on the actual disability claim based on discrimination (Lexis Nexis Academic: Weber v. Strippitt, Inc.). Hence, the plaintiff prayed for a review before the court.

            The arguments of David Weber are that the defendant violated his right before the law concerning a representative jury when the defendants caused the use of peremptory challenges to deny jurors which is 50 years of age and that the trial court was wrong when it gave a decision as a matter of law on his claim of actual disability. Another argument is that the instructions of the jury are not proper or meritorious.

            The Plaintiff-employee brought the matter to the Supreme Court stating those aforementioned grounds. Prior to that, he prayed for a review of his case before the United States District Court for the Minnesota District. The decision of the district court was not in favor of David Weber. However, the highest court of the land decided the case in such a way that David Weber’s rights were denied based on legitimate reasons.

Legal and Ethical Issues Statement

            Is it legal for the jurors to give inappropriate instructions in its decisions or findings? Is it legal for the trial court to grant motion of the defendant for judgment as a matter of law of the claim of the Plaintiff for actual disability? Is it ethical for the Strippitt Company to relocate Weber upon knowing that he has heart problems? Is it ethical for the defendant company to do outright termination of the job position of David Weber upon refusal to relocate? This case is just a simple one but there are legal and ethical matters that need to be clarified for the benefit of both parties.

Applicable Legal Rules

The equal protection clause does not allow prosecutors from striking jurors only on the basis of their race. The rule applies also to counsel attending in choices of jury for civil cases and as well as to peremptory challenges on the basis of sex or gender-related issues. Aside from that, the practice of giving allowance to peremptory challenges may be overridden only for the most reasonable constitutional mandate. However, it must be remembered that age is not included in the classification subject to strict scrutiny under the equal protection clause as compared to race and gender. It is also noted by the Court that the appellate court has a right to review the district court’s grant of a motion for judgment as a matter of law de novo (Lexis Nexis Academic: Weber v. Strippitt, Inc.). The Americans with Disabilities Act or otherwise known as (ADA) proscribes discrimination by an employer against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual which is found in provision 42 U. S. C. S. Section 12112 (a) (Lexis Nexis Academic: Weber v. Strippitt, Inc.). The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) similarly creates a civil cause of action against employers who discharge an employee because of a disability which is found in Minn. Stat. Section 363.03 subd. 1(2)(b) (Lexis Nexis Academic: Weber v. Strippitt, Inc.).

Support for Ethical Issues

            The ethical issues of this case points out against the way the Strippitt Company handles it employee which is the Plaintiff of this case. It cannot be avoided that the Plaintiff may suffer of heart problems due to age or physical incapacity. But it was not proper on the part of the company to force the employee to relocate without considering other factors for that matter. The refusal to relocate might be a cause for termination but for purposes of fair play and procedure, there should be a hearing conducted for the benefit of both parties. What happened was that there was an outright termination for David Weber for refusal to relocate as required by the company. Hence, the error of the company is applying ethical standards in its dealings with its employees particularly David Weber which is one of them.

Observation

This case is a good basis for whatever compliance plan to be prepared for a particular company. The primary argument invoked by Weber is the equal protection clause of which he thought was violated by the opposing parties. He also questioned the alleged discriminatory acts of the defendant in terminating him from work on account of actual disability when he knows that ADA and Minnesota Human Rights Act prohibits said practices. However, the highest court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts since those age-based peremptory challenges did not violate the rule on equal protection clause as it was decided. For the Supreme Court, the judgment was meritorious and proper since the Plaintiff was not able to present enough evidence to prove his medical situation. In other words, the Plaintiff failed to prove that indeed he has heart problems.

Finally, it was not right on the part of the Plaintiff to mention that the instructions of the jury are not proper. The Supreme Court found out that the instructions of the jury were said to be fair and proper. Hence, the instructions of the jury were adequate in the sense of the law. It may be true that Weber was suffering heart problems but its failure to prove the same is tantamount to weakening his claim for discrimination on account of actual disability.

References

Cornell. (2008). Smith et. al v. City of Jackson. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-1160.ZO.html.

Lexis Nexis Academic. (2008). David Weber v. Strippitt, Inc. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from http://www.lexisnexis.com.dml.regis.edu/us/lnacademic/mungo/

lexseestat.do?bct=100_T4689959839-1&risb=21_T4689959840&asetId=Z-BB-A-U-A-MsSAYWA-UUB-U-U-U-U-U-U-AWWCBBEBZW-AWWWEWUA

ZW-WBDAEEADC-U-U&documentNo=1&rand=0.781508349797212&&cite

String=1999%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%2017919&countryCode=USA&typ=shpmdln&hlt=186%20F.3d%20907.

Russia’s communications regulator ordered public access to LinkedIn’s website to be blocked on Thursday to comply with a court ruling that found the social networking firm guilty of violating a data storage law.

LinkedIn, which has its headquarters in the United States, is the first major social network to be blocked by Russian authorities, setting a precedent for the way foreign Internet firms operate. It has over 6 million registered users in Russia.

The Kremlin said that the decision was legal and that President Vladimir Putin did not plan to interfere in the case.

When asked whether the move might stir fears of online censorship, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said there were “no such concerns.”

Critics see it as part of an attack on social networks in a country which has increasingly tightened control over the Internet.

Russian law requires websites that store the personal data of Russian citizens to do so on Russian servers, something communications regulator Roskomnadzor said LinkedIn had not done.

Question 1 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points TECO Coal Corporation mines and ships more than six million tons of coal annually. TECO is comprehensively regulated by the U. S. Bureau of Mines. The U. S. Bureau of Mines may conduct a surprise inspection of one of TECO’s mines: Answer Selected Answer: d. without a search warrant to ensure safety. Correct Answer: d. without a search warrant to ensure safety. Question 2 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points The primary source of federal power to regulate business is the: Answer Selected Answer: d. Commerce Clause. Correct Answer: d. Commerce Clause. Question 3 2. out of 2. 5 points The power of federal agencies is limited by: Answer Selected Answer: d. All of the above. Correct Answer: d. All of the above. Question 4 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Zeno, Inc. is considering relocating its manufacturing facility from Illinois to Mexico City. The stakeholders in this decision might include: Answer Selected Answer: d. All of the above. Correct Answer: d. All of the above. Question 5 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points The observation that “The one and only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” can be attributed to: Answer Selected Answer: d.

Milton Friedman. Correct Answer: d. Milton Friedman. Question 6 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points The Chief Executive Officer of Ticor, Inc. must decide about the disposal of toxic waste materials. Which of the following considerations should help the CEO reach an ethical business decision? Answer Selected Answer: d. All of the above. Correct Answer: d. All of the above. Question 7 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points The Constitution ensures that the states retain all power not given to the national government. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: True Question 8 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points

A rule that establishes maximum length of work shifts for air traffic controllers is an example of an administrative regulation. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: True Question 9 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Society is hurt when business managers behave ethically. Answer Selected Answer: False Correct Answer: False Question 10 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points There is strong evidence that ethical behavior pays off financially for businesses. Answer Selected Answer: False Correct Answer: False Question 11 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Which of the following is not an example of a trial court of limited jurisdiction? Answer

Selected Answer: c. A general civil division court. Correct Answer: c. A general civil division court. Question 12 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Federal jurisdiction based upon a “federal question” includes cases based on: Answer Selected Answer: d. All of the above. Correct Answer: d. All of the above. Question 13 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points When an appellate court hears a case, it may: Answer Selected Answer: d. All the above are correct. Correct Answer: d. All the above are correct. Question 14 0 out of 2. 5 points In order for a federal court to have jurisdiction, there must be a federal question involved and at least $75,000 in dispute.

Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: False Question 15 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Generally, mandatory arbitration provisions in a contract are valid. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: True Question 16 0 out of 2. 5 points The President has the power to remove the chairperson of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, an independent federal administrative agency, if the President disagrees with the chairperson’s actions. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: False Question 17 0 out of 2. 5 points Because of the concept of stare decisis, the U. S.

Supreme Court, in interpreting a statute in 2009, will necessarily interpret certain statutory language in the same way as the U. S. Supreme Court interpreted the same statutory language in 1971. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: False Question 18 0 out of 2. 5 points If the title of an appellate court case appears as Jones v. Smith: Answer Selected Answer: d. Smith won the trial court decision. Correct Answer: a. you cannot determine which party is the plaintiff, because when a defendant loses a trial and files an appeal, some courts (but not all) reverse the names of the parties.

Question 19 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Henry David Thoreau felt that war was unjust and therefore refused to pay his taxes when the United States declared war on Mexico. If Henry David Thoreau’s neighbor agreed that war was unjust but paid his taxes because the law required him to pay the tax, the neighbor would be applying the jurisprudence theory of: Answer Selected Answer: b. Legal Positivism. Correct Answer: b. Legal Positivism. Question 20 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points The federal judicial branch of the U. S. government: Answer Selected Answer: a. interprets statutes. Correct Answer: a. nterprets statutes. Question 1 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Tariffs are generally higher in developing countries than in developed countries. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: True Question 2 0 out of 2. 5 points Ad valorem duty is based on the fair market value of the imported good as of the date it reaches the United States, not the price actually paid for the good when sold for export to the United States. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: False Question 3 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Which of the following statements about torts is correct? Answer Selected Answer: c.

A tortious act may also be a criminal act. Correct Answer: c. A tortious act may also be a criminal act. Question 4 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Shortly after Brian started to work at Trevit, Inc. , a co-worker, Ann, began asking him out. Brian said no. Nevertheless, Ann persisted. One day Ann playfully, but intentionally touched Brian “below the belt. ” Which statement is correct? Answer Selected Answer: d. Ann committed the tort of battery. Correct Answer: d. Ann committed the tort of battery. Question 5 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Don was standing in a cafeteria line holding a plate.

Tim was upset with Don. Tim turned Don around and grabbed the plate out of Don’s hand. Tim then held the plate up and threatened to break it over Don’s head. Tim has committed: Answer Selected Answer: c. both an assault and a battery. Correct Answer: c. both an assault and a battery. Question 6 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Silas asks his friend Shelby to come to his property to go fishing at his pond. If he fails to warn her that the dock has a rotten spot and she falls through and is injured, Silas would be held liable in most states. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: True Question 7 . 5 out of 2. 5 points A sports fan, injured by a hockey puck that flew into the stands during an NHL game, would be subject to the defense of assumption of the risk in a suit to recover for her injuries. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: True Question 8 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Which of the following statements is correct? Answer Selected Answer: d. White-collar crime results in a greater monetary loss to society than violent street crime. Correct Answer: d. White-collar crime results in a greater monetary loss to society than violent street crime. Question 9 0 out of 2. 5 points

Eric was charged with attempted murder. His defense was that he was insane at the time of the act. A jury accepted Eric’s defense. Eric will: Answer Selected Answer: b. have to be committed to a mental hospital until he regains his sanity, at which time he will be retried. Correct Answer: a. probably be committed to a mental hospital and when that hospital determines he is no longer a danger to society, he will be released. Question 10 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points The Theft of Honest Services statute: Answer Selected Answer: b. prohibits both public and private employees from taking bribes or kickbacks.

Correct Answer: b. prohibits both public and private employees from taking bribes or kickbacks. Question 11 0 out of 2. 5 points Kelley went ice skating on a neighbor’s pond, but she fell through a thin area into icy waters. Kelley did not have permission to be on the property, and the neighbor did not even know that she was there. Is the neighbor liable for Kelley’s injuries? Answer Selected Answer: c. No. Kelley was a trespasser and the neighbor could only be held liable for intentionally injuring her or for gross misconduct. Correct Answer: a. It may depend on Kelley’s age.

Question 12 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points A customer in a restaurant would be considered ________ to whom the restaurant owner owes a duty ________. Answer Selected Answer: b. an invitee; of reasonable care. Correct Answer: b. an invitee; of reasonable care. Question 13 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Negligence concerns harm that: Answer Selected Answer: b. arises by accident. Correct Answer: b. arises by accident. Question 14 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points A tort is a violation of a duty imposed by the civil law. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: True Question 15 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points

A salesclerk at Braybon’s Department Store observed a customer remove a ring from a display case and put it in her purse. In most states, Braybon’s will be able to detain the customer for suspicion of shoplifting. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: True Question 16 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points There is only one valid reason to punish criminals — deterrence. Answer Selected Answer: False Correct Answer: False Question 17 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Criminal defendants have the right to a lawyer at all the important stages of the criminal process. Answer Selected Answer: True Correct Answer: True

Question 18 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points In Marubeni America Corp. v. United States, the federal appellate court ruled that the Nissan Pathfinder was, for tariff classification purposes a motor vehicle for the transport of passengers. The classification of goods is significant because: Answer Selected Answer: c. the tariffs will vary depending on the classification. Correct Answer: c. the tariffs will vary depending on the classification. Question 19 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points The United States has agreed to which of the following? Answer Selected Answer: d. All of the above. Correct Answer: d. All of the above.

Question 20 2. 5 out of 2. 5 points Hardhat Machine Company sold goods to Irish Eyes Company of Northern Ireland. Big Bank issued a letter of credit on behalf of Irish Eyes and the letter was given to Hardhat. The documents required by the letter of credit are presented to the bank for payment while the goods are still in transit. Is Hardhat entitled to be paid? Answer Selected Answer: a. Yes, the letter of credit is a promise by the bank to pay when certain documents are presented. Correct Answer: a. Yes, the letter of credit is a promise by the bank to pay when certain documents are presented.

Feudalism began in France around A. D. 900 and spread. The feudal hierarchy was an arrangement of rank resembling a pyramid. At the top of the pyramid was the king. In the feudal relationship the king was the suzerain, or lord, of a group of dukes and counts who were his vassals. Each of these vassals was in turn lord to lesser vassals, who had even less important vassals. At the bottom of the pyramid were the knights, who had no vassals. Lord and vassal owed certain obligations to each other.

The vassal pledged to perform certain services for his lord, and in return the lord granted him a fief, or fee. A fief was anything that was considered useful or valuable. Usually, a fief was a piece of land, jurisdiction over the peasants who lived on the land, and ownership of the goods they produced. All fiefs were technically owned by the king, but a vassal held, in effect, all the rights of ownership of the fief as long as he performed the services required by his lord. The entire kingdom was divided into fiefs, except for the land held by the king personally.

Feudal tenure was hereditary. When a vassal died, his heir did homage for his fief and swore an oath of fealty to his lord, promising to be faithful and render service. In the ceremony of investiture, the lord handed his vassal some symbol—such as a sword or a clod of earth—in token of title, and promised to defend the vassal’s fief. If a vassal died leaving a minor heir, the lord usually became the guardian of the fief and managed it. If the heir was an unmarried daughter, the lord could select a husband for her because only a male could perform the services of the fief.

Feudal services were the services that a vassal owed his lord varied. Military or Knight Service: A vassal was expected to serve his lord in war. Usually he served 40 days a year at his own expense if engaged in an offensive action against his lord’s enemy. In a defensive action the term of service was unlimited. A knight was expected to furnish only his horse and armor, but great vassals had to supply hundreds of knights and men-at-arms. With Court Services vassals had to serve, when summoned, in the lord’s court.

They were called upon to give the lord advice. They also met in assembly to settle disputes between vassals. This was the origin of the principle of trial by a jury of peers, or equals. Vassals were also summoned for ceremonial occasions, such as investitures. Financial Obligations included: A relief, or gift, to the lord when the fief passed to an heir. It amounted usually to a year’s income. Aids, payments made by vassals when their lord needed additional resources. A common aid was to help ransom the lord when he was taken prisoner in war.

Other aids were given when the lord’s eldest daughter was married and when his eldest son became a knight. They were obligated to entertain the lord when he paid a visit. During feudal warfare a powerful vassal who did not fulfill his obligations could usually withstand his lord’s wrath if he owned a strong castle, since medieval castles were almost impossible to overrun. Forty days’ service—the usual limit for knights in the attacking force—left insufficient time for siege operations.

Private warfare between nobles who were neither lord nor vassal to each other was common in France, since the king could not control the vassals of his vassals. The church sought to limit strife by forbidding warfare on certain days of the week and during church festivals. Chivalry developed as a code of conduct for knights. Feudalism came to an end as the kings increased their power and forced the lesser landowners to obey their orders. Feudalism was introduced in England in 1066 following the Battle of Hastings and the Norman Conquest.

The Normans, led by William the Conqueror who was crowned King William I of England were responsible for introducing feudalism to England. Feudalism was based on the exchange of land for military service. William the Conqueror claimed all the land in England and divide the land between himself (about 20%), the church (about 25%) and the remainder of English land was given to Norman soldiers and nobles (barons). Following the Norman Conquest William the Conqueror ordered a full survey of England which was called the Doomsday Book.

It gave the new King of England full details of the land, the people and how much taxes and dues would be paid to the Normans. Under the Feudal system the vassals who were awarded land swore an Oath of Fealty to their lord and provided fully equipped soldiers under the Feudal Levy. Medieval Serfs were peasants who worked his lord’s land and paid him certain dues in return for the use of land, the possession (not the ownership) of which was heritable. When the land changed owners during the time of feudalism the peasants were obliged to work for the new owners – the Normans.

The decline of feudalism in England occurred due to many events including the Black Death, changes from a land-based economy to a money based economy and the establishment of Centralized government. Feudalism began in 410 AD with the fall of Rome. Feudalism in Germany was different from that of France and England. The old Germanic tribes which plagued the Roman emperors emerged again after Charlemagne’s successors lost power. Four stem duchies eventually emerged as the most powerful in Germany: Saxony, Franconia, Swabia, and Bavaria.

One strong duke, Otto of Saxony (936-973) tried to establish lordship over the other dukes. He invaded Italy, starting a long tradition of German interference in that peninsula, and made himself King of Italy. He was then crowned emperor by the pope himself (962). The strong points were; l) fragmentation of political power; 2) public power in private hands; and 3) armed forces secured through private contracts. Feudalism is, therefore, a method of government, and a way of securing the forces necessary to preserve that method of government.

It is also an extreme form of decentralization. There many centers of power. Power does not reside at a center, or at the top, even though there a pyramidal structure in theory, with the emperor at the top and the simple knight at the bottom. The weak points were weak central power and realizing that a strong defense relied on a single leader. Napoleon was a leader during that time. Feudalism in Germany ended in the 15th century at about the same time England’s Feudalism ended, as well as the rest of Europe’s feudalism.