Business Ethics

Submitted by: Submitted by

Views: 247

Words: 334

Pages: 2

Category: Business and Industry

Date Submitted: 09/25/2011 09:20 AM

Report This Essay

1. Was it ethical for the two individual defendants (other than the National Enquirer) to try to avoid being sued in California rather than in Florida. I’m not asking you whether it is ethical for Calder and South to avoid being sued entirely but only if it ethical for them to insist that the lawsuit be in Florida, the state in which they rside, rather than California. Please define the ethical standard by which you are making this ethical judgment?.

I think the case should have been held wherever Ms. Jones felt the damages were taken place. The president of the National Enquirer resides in Florida and the National Enquirer is a Florida Corporation. A state has personal jurisdiction over any party whose actions intentionally reach another party in the state and are the basis for the cause of action therefore it gives Mr. Jones every right to seek the lawsuit in a different state. The defendants like the president of the National Enquirer run the company from a different state than where it is published therefore it should be common sense that there may be problems that arise from outside of Florida.

2. Are the two individual defendants subject to personal jurisdiction in California? Why or why not?. Here, I’m asking you to explain to me the legal reasoning used by the Supreme Court in its opinion to determine whether personal jurisdiction exists in California over the two individual defendants.

Yes, I believe the two individual defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in California because the defendant is doing it with the specific intent to cause a crime in another State. Therefore, they can be subject to personal jurisdiction. When the case proceeded to the US Supreme Court the court found that the situation was similar to sending a letter bomb or firing a weapon across a state boundary and injuring someone. Even though the Enquirer is not published in California, the individual was affected in California from the article.