Deliberate exclusion

Deliberate exclusion

Name:

Institution:

Course:

Tutor:

Date:

Discussion Questions

Question 1:

The court put in consideration various factors before reaching a decision. To begin with, it determined whether Kodak had monopoly power and after establishing this, it delved into determining whether the decision that was undertaken by Kodak was informed by the need to protect its patented parts as well as copyrighted works. The court then evaluated various competing interests of the public policy and found out that Kodak’s decision to protect the others form its patented and copyrighted work had devastating effects on the consumer base. In this regard, Kodak’s decision to exclude some consumers such as independent service organizations can be considered to be unethical and needs to be shunned. From a business point of view, all consumers are major stakeholders in a given business entity and therefore their needs need to be addressed accordingly. Deliberate exclusion form benefiting from the services and products of this company undermined the degree of happiness of the respective consumers. From a utilitarian standpoint, this is immoral because it reduces the level of happiness of the consumers.

Question 2:

In this case, the agreement between Northeast and Wellington was not bound by any fiduciary like obligations. For this reason, Northeast was not obligated to provide any adverse information about the clients to Wellington. The court ruled in favor of Wellington because in light of the contract agreement, Northeast was solely required to find and present suitable candidates as opposed to performing the services provided by an investment consultant or banker which are bound by fiduciary like obligations. Ruling otherwise would have accorded Northeast other obligates that were not initially presented in the contract. The court also ruled in favor of Northeast because this organization fulfilled its role as required by the contract. Put differently, it found and presented Wellington with a willing buyer of its investment.

There are various risk factors that the management needed to have reviewed prior to finalizing and implementing the acquisition agreement. To begin with, the management of Wellington needed to have reviewed the credibility of Sternau’s companies as well as their reputation. Prior analysis in this regard would have been useful in enabling Wellington to make informed financial decisions either before or after entering the acquisition agreement. Besides understanding the history of Sternau’s companies Wellington organization also needs to have evaluated the investment options that it had at its disposal. Likewise, this would have been useful in enabling it to make credible financial decisions and to define its position in the acquisition contract.

Question 3:

The United States has 94 different federal district courts that also represent the federal trial courts under general jurisdiction. Every district court covers a geographic region that is called a judicial district. The respective locations covered by the each district differ considerably. The District of Columbia, three territories and Puerto Rico have one judicial district each. The remaining states have either two or more judicial districts. The inherent geographic disparity has diverse implications on the quality of service that the citizens are accorded. Arguably, the services provided by judicial districts covering bigger geographical areas as comparatively of lower quality than those covering a smaller geographical area. This is further compounded by the rising population and increasing diversity as well as complexity of social problems.

Question 4:

The constitutional right that the government would be infringing upon under these facts pertains to the student’s right to free speech. Under the US constitution, very individual has a right to communicate his or her ideas, expressions and opinions freely. This is inclusive of the freedom to hold individual opinions without any form of interference. It also involves the right to receive, seek, or impart ideas or information using any form of media irrespective of the frontiers. Expelling the student from the school would certainly infringe upon the rights of the student to free speech.

In addressing this concern, the court would review the school regulations regarding the dress code. Arguably, an education institution that would tae such a step would certainly have strict rules regarding the dress code and the relative expectations of the students. The school would in this regard refer to cases of controversial articles or information on student clothing to shield it self. Also, reference to the right to freedom would be made and the action of the education institution analyzed in light of the respective provisions.

Indeed, there are competing interests that are presented in this case. These need to be balanced in order to foster harmonic co existence between the school principal and the students. Allowing the child to wear the t-shirt would have profound implications on the authority of the learning institution. In particular, this would imply that the student is more powerful than the school authority and might culminate in the occurrence of other detrimental discipline cases. Considering the fact that the information on the t-shirt is a little bit sensitive, allowing the student to wear it would also imply that the respective information is indeed true. This has adverse impacts on the smooth running of the school. Preventing the student form wearing the t-shirt on the other hand would raise various concerns related to the free speech right.

There are various other factors outside the constitution that the court might consider during its decision making. To begin with, it would analyze whether there have been occurrences in the school in the recent past that might have compelled the student to print the writings on the t-shirt. Then, I would also evaluate the past behavior of the student in a bid to determine whether s/he has been involved in discipline matters previously. This would enable the court to ascertain the action and decision of the student in this respect. Further, it would be useful for the court to determine whether the student has had relationship problems with the principal before.

If the t-shirt contained vulgarity or profanity according to community standards, the analysis of the case would not change. This is because the issue lies under the freedom of speech issue and the community is not directly involved in the matter. Finally, it is not a must that the student takes the case to court. There are other viable mechanisms through which the dispute can be resolved. To a great extent, these would be based on the relationship that the student has with the school administration. For instance, negotiation approach to problem resolution can be pursued. In this regard, a third party such as parents of the student or school board would be employed in helping the principal and the student to resolve the problem.