I need support with this Business Law question so I can learn better.
1.Analyze the cases in the Questions and Problems for:
Chapter 2 (4, 5, and 7) in Dynamic Business Law
Chapter 3 (7 and 9) in Dynamic Business Law
2.For each assigned case, analyze the issue based on the following criteria:
Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).
Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear.
Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.
3.Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view.
4. Jarold Daniel Friedman worked as a temporary computer contractor for a pharmaceutical ware- house. The warehouse offered him a permanent position, but the warchouse required that he get a mumps vaccine, grown in chicken embryos, as a condition of his permanent employment. Friedman a vegan, believed that the vaccination would violate his religious beliefs and declined to be vaccinated. As a result, the warchouse withdrew its offer of employment. Friedman claimed that the warchouse discriminated against him on the basis of religion. Do you agree with Friedman? Do employers have a duty to respect the beliefs of their employees? If so, what happens when that duty conflicts with employers’ duty to provide a safe and healthy work environment? (Friedman Southern California Permanente Medical Group, 102 Cal. App. 4th 39 (2002).
5. Jennifer Erickson sued her employer, Bartell Drug Company, contending that its decision not to cover prescription contraceptives under its employee pre- scription drug plan constituted sex discrimination. Bartell argued that its decision was not sex discrim- ination because contraceptives were preventive, were voluntary, and did not treat an illness. With whom do you agree? Why? What values did you use to reach your conclusion? (Erickson Bartell Drug Co, 141 F Supp. 24 1266 (2001)
7. Ermest Price went to a doctor in 1997, seeking Oxycontin to treat pain related to sickle cell ane- mia. Between November 1999 and October 2000, Price sought Oxycontin prescriptions from at least ten different doctors at ten different clinics in two cities, filling the prescriptions at seven pharmacies in three cities, The doctors were notified of Price’s medication-secking behavior, and the doctors dis continued Price’s treatment. Price then filed suit. claiming his doctors, pharmacies, and the pharma- ceutical compunies that manufactured Oxycontin had breached their duty by failing to adequately warn Price of the addictive nature of Oxycontin. How do you think the court responded to Price’s claims? Think about all the stakeholders involved in such a case: how would those parties be affected by a ruling in favor of Price? In favor of the doc tors and pharmaceutical companies? (Ernest Price K. The Purdue Pharma Co, 920 So. 2d 479; 2006 Miss. LEXIS 67 (2006)
7. The plaintiff, a Texas resident, and the defendants, Colorado residents, were cat breeders who met at a cat show in Colorado. Subsequently, the plain- tiff sent two cats to the defendants in Colorado for breeding and sent a third cat to them to be sold. A dispute over the return of the two breed- ing cats arose, and the plaintiff filed suit against the defendants in Texas. The defendants alleged that the Texas court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they did not have minimum contacts within the state of Texas. The Texas statute provides that the Texas court could exercise jurisdiction over an out-of-state defen- dant only if (1) the defendant has purposefully estab- lished minimum contacts with the forum state and (2) the exercise of jurisdiction comports with tradi- tional notions of fair play and substantial justice. The defendants were not residents of Texas and had no business in Texas. The only contact the defendants had with Texas was a single trip they made to Texas to pick up two other cats, not related to the litigation, that they were going to take to a cat show. During that same visit, the defendants took a cat unrelated to the lawsuit to see a Texas veterinarian, and the plain- tiff’s husband assisted the defendants with a Web page for their business. The trial court found that sufficient minimum contacts had been established. The defendants appealed. How do you believe the appellate court would rule in this case, and why? IHagan v. Field, Court of Appeals of Texas, Fifth District, Dallas, 2006 Tex. App. LEXIS 393.
9. Thirteen record labels filed a copyright violation suit against Hummer Winblad Venture Partners (Hummer), an owner of Napster, a peer-to-peer file- sharing network for online distribution of music. Hummer filed a counterclaim alleging antitrust violations against the record labels because they conspired to exclude independent music distribu- tors like Napster from the online music distribu- tion market. The record labels argued that Hummer lacked standing to make its counterclaims because Hummer, not Napster, made the counterclaims and Hummer never competed directly with the record labels. Hummer, on the other hand, argued that it had standing because it financed Napster, a partici- pant in the online music distribution market. How do you think the court ruled in this case? Why? In re Napster Copyright Linig, v. Hummer Winhlad Venture Partners, 354 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (2005).