Business Ethics Case Study 3.5
Business Ethics Case Study 3.5
Leslie Mayorca
University of Phoenix
BUS/415 Business Law
John Lombardi
February 3, 2011
Business Ethics Case Study 3.5 1. What kind of paper is the National Enquirer?
The National Enquirer is a national weekly newspaper with over 5 million copies circulating, with its principal place of business in Florida. It is also known as a gossip paper with some truths and many lies or as some want to call it “twisting the truth”. 2. Was it ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California?
It was not ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California because this is Shirley Jones place of residence, where she lives and works, and where the paper caused damages for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 3. Are the defendants subject to suit in California? Why or why not?
Yes, the defendants are subject to suit in California because the National Enquirer is sold in that state, the paper committed a tortious act against a resident of California; the damage to Ms Jones career is done in California. Also a state court can obtain jurisdiction over businesses and people in another state through the state’s long-arm statue. According to Cheeseman, H.R. (2010) these statutes extend a state’s jurisdiction to nonresidents who were not served a summons within the state.
Reference
Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice
Leslie Mayorca
University of Phoenix
BUS/415 Business Law
John Lombardi
February 3, 2011
Business Ethics Case Study 3.5 1. What kind of paper is the National Enquirer?
The National Enquirer is a national weekly newspaper with over 5 million copies circulating, with its principal place of business in Florida. It is also known as a gossip paper with some truths and many lies or as some want to call it “twisting the truth”. 2. Was it ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California?
It was not ethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid suit in California because this is Shirley Jones place of residence, where she lives and works, and where the paper caused damages for defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 3. Are the defendants subject to suit in California? Why or why not?
Yes, the defendants are subject to suit in California because the National Enquirer is sold in that state, the paper committed a tortious act against a resident of California; the damage to Ms Jones career is done in California. Also a state court can obtain jurisdiction over businesses and people in another state through the state’s long-arm statue. According to Cheeseman, H.R. (2010) these statutes extend a state’s jurisdiction to nonresidents who were not served a summons within the state.
Reference
Cheeseman, H. R. (2010). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce (6th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice