Repost 1 week 1 DB 1 week 1 response Db. /Legal Business Each post should be one paragraph in length

Repost 1 week 1 DB 1 week
1 response Db. /Legal Business
Each post should be one paragraph in length
(75 words) and must be substantive in nature Do not simply state that it is a
good or bad idea, specify why and be detailed in your explanation. Aside from
assisting a classmate, the goal is to demonstrate your mastery of the concepts.
1 response 75 words
2 response 75 words
3 response 75 words

250 words
#1 post

To continue developing this week’s

In a
contract dispute, under what circumstances would a trial be more advantageous
over arbitration?
Mia LaChelle Strozier
October 7, 2013
Unit 1 D/B
American InterContinental University
The Sherman Act was designed to control or
normalize if you will interstate commerce. the Sherman Antitrust Act was
introduced by Ohio Senator John Sherman. Through many changes, the Sherman Act
is primarily set up to restrict the cartels and the trusts to secure control.
The law was installed to avert those from artificially hiking the price on
supply restriction or trade accounts. Essentially,the Sherman Act furtherproscribes
any form of monopolization for any characteristics of interstate trading or
commerce. The Sherman Act states that it is illegal to have any contracts,
intermingling in the model of a trusty or otherwise, or trickery “in restraint of trade or commerce among
the several States, or with foreign nations†(Sherman Antitrust Act, 2010)

“Goliath answers that it was not a party to
the cartel agreement and that the agreement does not affect the US market for
sapphires’’ (Mayer, Bixby, 2012).
Goliath is correct because his company is considered a parental
corporation and therefore does not have any straight if you will,
“import/export†business undertakings.
“Junior answers that it is not subject to
the jurisdiction of the United States courts†(Mayer, Bixby, 2012), which is
correct because the company operates in the Cayman Islands. The company is
considered operational in the territories of the British which in hindsight is
not under the United States jurisdiction. When Junior formed the company it was
under the laws of the Cayman Island even though it was a subsidiary company for
the United States. The contracts that Junior entered into are not considered
illegal under the laws of the Cayman Island whereas they would be in the United
The United States would have a hard time
instituting charges leveled at either company as the charges would be unable to
stand in a court of law. However, if the Cayman Islands gave the go ahead to
the United States to press charges against “Juniorâ€, they may have a chance to
re-coup any losses as set forth in the terms of the Sherman Act.
In closing, many companies or corporations
use these maneuvers to start their business in Countries that do not follow the
laws of the United States because they feel like they can avoid the arduous
trade laws set up by the United States of America.
Sherman Antitrust Act. (2010, August). Retrieved from Sherman
Antitrust Act/ LII/ Legal Information Institute:
Mayer, Don , Bixby, Michalel. (2012). International
Business Law: Text, Cases, and Readings, Sixth Edition. Upper Saddle River:
Prentice Hall.

#3 post
Who is responsible? The parent or the
Anthony Tomlin
MGT 625 1304C-01
AIU Online
After reading this scenario about who is
actually responsible, I decided to do some research on this subject, and what I
found out was interesting. In the
Supreme court of Illinois, made an exception to what is called the bedrock
principle or direct limited liability theory.
What they ruled was that “, a parent company is not necessarily immune
from liability†(Helper, 2013). And
although it is based on workplace environment it still has implications for the
parent company as they would still have a duty of care, or breach of duty,
injury caused by the breach or resulting damages of negligence.
Then there is the case in the UK of
Chandler versus Cape PLC. Chandler was a
worker who worked for Cape Building Products and he developed a case of
asbestosis who then sued the parent company Cape PLC, because Cape Building
Products went out of business. Although
Cape PLC defense was that they could not be held liable for the actions of the
subsidiary, the high court of the UK ruled otherwise saying that Cape PLC had a
duty of care and was in breach of that duty because Cape PLC had knowledge of
the subsidiary’s actions, knew that Chandler was exposed and “it had employed
scientific and medical officers responsible for health and safety issues,
including those of the subsidiary companies, to ensure they were not exposed to
harm†(Eccles, 2012).
So to answer the questions, even though
Goliath did not know about Junior’s cartel agreement I believe that they still
have had a duty of care to ensure that Junior’s activities were still in line
with Goliath’s policies which are usually discussed beforehand. So I believe they both are incorrect in their
logic, because Goliath can be sued in the WTO international court. One of the options is to have Junior
re-negotiate the cartel agreement , or Goliath can dissolve the relationship
with Junior to relieve themselves of any responsibility. The impact of a deal like this would affect
the political climate because foreign country politicians would want to help
corner the market, socially would mean that only a certain economic class of
people would be able to afford the gems, and legally Junior and/or Goliath
could be subject to numerous lawsuits stating they are manipulating the market
and pricing.

Eccles, P. (2012, May 4). Liability of
parent companies and the actions of their subsidiaries. Retrieved from
Helper, B. S. (2013, July 24). Can
parent companies be held liable for the acts of the subsidaries? Retrieved


Looking for a Similar Assignment? Let us take care of your accounting classwork while you enjoy your free time! All papers are written from scratch and are 100% Original. Try us today! Active Discount Code FREE15