(b) What are the ethical issues involved in this situation? The ethical issues involved in this situation pertain to following accepted accounting principles. Violating the generally accepted accounting principles to satisfy a short-term personal or company would create misleading financial statements. This situation would therefore be unethical. Robbin Industries is jeopardizing itself by not properly reporting the advertising costs.
The federal government can also control exchange in a situation when it has an effect on interstate progress of supplies and provisions and may strike down state proceedings which are obstacles to such movements (2012). Is The Confusion Statue Constitutional? Discuss Your Legal Reasoning Under the meaning of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the lawsuit stresses a “case of controversy.” Although states have the authority to set their own statues, some of them can cause distress and have to be evaluated by advanced courts. The state of Confusion is using the undemanding fact that the trucks have to drive through their state and are advancing from them economically. They are not requiring the B-type hitch to guard the roadways and are exclusively requiring the hitch to generate additional profits.
DQ5: What are some social and legal implications of management fraud? How can a company protect itself from fraudulent
But it becomes wrong when you are selling your products at such a low price that you put all other companies out of business. When you are using this form of dumping, you put people out of work because their company can no longer afford to keep them on. Either way I don’t see any moral reasoning that would support dumping products overseas if it’s illegal. First you are breaking a law that has been setup to protect people. You are also intentionally causing harm to others, if you follow either definition.
1. Do these employer statements constitute an unlawful threat in violation of Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA? Why or why not? In response to the statements provided by the employer, it is observed that there is some degree of coercion and threatening accusations made in these statements, based upon Section 8(a)(1) of the LMRA. These statements constitute a threat because they demonstrate that the company was making attempts to influence employees regarding the union vote by making viable threats regarding existing benefit packages.
To begin with, one of the experiences was that the Declatory ACTS was parliament’s ability to tax without representation, and the influence to that was that the Articles of Confederation restricted congress from taxing. Also, another experience was the Tamp Act, and the influences were taxation without representation. Lastly, the Articles of Confederation had a lot of influences. Such as no taxing power given to national government constitution and elected officials can create laws to collect Revenue. Also, no power to regulate commerce, and lastly no executive branch to enforce laws; but limited by checks and balances.
According to the Commerce Clause the state statute is unconstitutional because it is a burden on interstate commerce to the state of Confusion. This law prohibits B-type hitch fittings. Only one manufacturer in the state of Confusion makes this type of hitch. This creates problems such as expense, complications of trade, time consumption, and business transactions. Because of all these problems along with unconstitutional barriers through this statute, there is a significant chance that Tanya will win this case.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) where the only two agencies that could enforce this act. The Federal Trade Commission said “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce are hereby declared illegal” (Abernathy, 10). Either the DOJ or the FTC can enforce the Clayton Act, but “violations of that statue are not crimes and can be pursued only through civil proceedings” (11). The two agencies monitor these laws and will enforce them when
To those cases that have been opened after the bill was passed were immediately dismissed or denied. In Section 2 of S.397 states and explains all the findings and purposes of which the bill upholds or protects. S.397 was initially proposed because it imposed on the liability of an industry entirely because of others abusing the legal system. It counters our Nation’s laws which present a loophole in our legal system. Therefore, the executive, legislative, and judicial branch will enforce S.397 to protect firearm industries and our legal system from those attempting to hold them accountable for their criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms or ammunition products.