kindly read instructions carefully and add respective reference.

User Generated

Sberapr

Business Finance

Description

Question 1 (United States v. Park)

Please do the usual case Analysis like previous cases with the Parties

Facts,Procedure ,Issue ,Applicable Laws ,Holding ,Reasoning ,Conclusion. The laws for this weeks consideration is Antitrust and consumer protection laws. You can refer to the book for citations.

Question 2

Please research the impact of Federal legislation such as the False Claims Act, Sarbanes/Oxley, the Whistleblower Protection Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO). Are there any State laws dealing with this area of law? How can we seek global enforcement of appropriate standards of conduct?

Question 3

Felonies versus Misdemeanors; Arrest Warrants

Class:

Without relying on our textbook, please distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors and provide examples of each. What must be proven to support the issuance of an arrest warrant?

Question 4

Criminal Law Procedures (Arrest Booking, First Appearance, Information or Indictment, Arraignment)

Class:

Without relying on our textbook, please discuss the criminal law procedures referred to above. What exactly is the Grand Jury and what are their responsibilities?

Question 5 ( PROCEEDURE ONLY FOR THE CASE )

*Duracell false advertising lawsuit

User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached.

OUTLINE

1. INTRODUCTION
2. BODY
3. CONCLUSION
4. REFERENCES


Running Head: LAW

Ethics and Law
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Instructor
Date

LAW

2

Question 1
The case of United States v. Park
Parties and Facts
The government of the United States filed this lawsuit against the chief executive officer
of the Acme International, Mr. Park. The respondent Mr. Park was charged with the breaching of
the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The respondent initially received a warning letter in
1970 from the FDA that one of his storehouses in Philadelphia was faced with unsanitary
conditions such that improvements needed to be done so that the food storage in these warehouses
could receive adequate protection from damages and contamination. However, in 1971, in the
process of temporary food storage before the sale, they were shipped into Acme's Baltimore
warehouse which was prone to rodents in which they were contaminated due to exposure to
rodents' contamination (Henry, 2016). The lawsuit claimed that regardless of the prior notification
of the unsanitary status, the defendant failed to fix the problem leading to further contagion of
other foodstuffs in a different company's warehouse.
Procedure
The federal government sued the Acme president Mr. Park for violating the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act. The defendant received a notice through a written letter that the condition
of one of the warehouses was not safe regarding goods temporary storage before sale since it was
full of rodents. Thus it needed some improvements for the safety of the warehoused products.
Conversely, the CEO never did any fixation because the same problem occurred when the goods
were moved into a different warehouse of the same company where they again faced exposure to
rodents' contamination. Furthermore, the letter was responded to by the Acme vice president who

LAW

3

described the procedures they needed to take to prevent the unsanitary states identified by the
government inspection. At his trial, the defendant alleged that he was concerned with the whole
company operations and that providing hygienic status for food offered for sale to the community
was just among the duties he was responsible for, such that it was one of the many that he delegated
to the trusted subordinates.
So, when the respondent received the letter in 1970 about the condition of the Philadelphia
warehouse, he claimed that the assigned parties were as well concerned with the hygienic
conditions of both warehouses. However, as the company's CEO, he was liable for any resulting
consequences within the corporation. The trial court, on the other hand, alerted the jury that may
be the respondent had not directly taken part into the predicament but related responsibly to the
circumstance. The court thus suggested that the claimant was in charge of distributing the task;
th...


Anonymous
Excellent resource! Really helped me get the gist of things.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags