Legal ethical & social environment

Reflection and Discussion Forum Week 4

Reflect on the assigned readings for the week. Identify what you thought was the most important concept(s), method(s), term(s), and/or any other thing that you felt was worthy of your understanding.

Also, provide a graduate-level response to each of the following questions:

1. California passes regulations that address pesticides.  These regulations are much stricter on the use and production of pesticides than the federal regulations.  Is this permissible under current law?  What if California’s regulations are much less strict than the federal regulations?


2. Deceitful Dad promises to take Sammy Son to the store to purchase a video game over the weekend.  Deceitful Dad has promised to do this multiple times, and never follows through.  Sammy Son has had enough and writes a contact between Deceitful Dad and Sammy Son.  Both parties sign the agreement and it is notarized.  Deceitful Dad, despite the contract, fails to follow through once again.  Can Sammy Son seek damages under the contract?  Why or why not?  Would the result be different if Sammy Son paid Deceitful Dad $15.00 to take him to the store?


3. Discuss the required elements of a valid contract analyzing when an agreement rises to the level of a legally enforceable contract and when it does not.

[Your initial post should be based upon the assigned reading for the week, so the textbook should be a source listed in your reference section and cited within the body of the text. Other sources are not required but feel free to use them if they aid in your discussion].

 [Your initial post should be at least 450+ words and in APA format (including Times New Roman with font size 12 and double spaced). Post the actual body of your paper in the discussion thread then attach a Word version of the paper for APA review]

Week 4 - Short Essays

Question I - Explain some of the hurdles litigants have encountered when it comes to the Endangered Species Act and standing to bring a lawsuit.

Question II - An illegal drug manufacturer and an illegal drug dealer enter into an oral contract in which the manufacturer will sell the drugs to the drug dealer for a set price.  The manufacturer changes his mind and sells his product to another dealer.  Could the dealer enforce the oral contract?  Why or why not?

Question III - A contract is made between two parties.  The terms of the contract are complete and unambiguous.  A dispute arises between the Parties.  Party A wants to pull out of the contract without penalty.  Party B argues that Party A’s proposed action is prohibited by the express terms of the contract.  Party A argues that the Parties verbally agreed to ignore that provision of the contract that would impose a penalty on Party A.  Which Party will prevail and why?