Words: 1160
The offer could be terminated either by revocation, rejection, expiration, or operation of law. Brian can argue that there was no agreement to begin with, and thus there was no contract. There was no offer made (the advertisement in the LA Times for the seminar was not an offer but an “invitation to negotiation”), and reasonably definite terms were not communicated to Brian before or during the seminar.
The ad did not specify a fee for attendance, and since it was not made clear to Brian that the $20 fee was for attending the seminar or for the book, Brian shouldn’t have to pay the fee. ICE could argue that a contract need not be written in order to exist. ICE made a verbal offer when the representative announced the $20 fee. The terms were definite: $20 seminar fee to cover the cost of the handbook, and this was communicated between ICE and the attendees (including Brian).
If Brian wanted to terminate the offer, he could’ve simply rejected the offer by returning the handbook. ICE could also argue that this was a quasi-contract, in which the ICE conferred some type of benefit to the attendees (a seminar to educate attendees on purchasing real estate), the attendees should’ve known they had to pay for it (surely an ad on the newspaper for such a helpful seminar could not be free), and it would be injustice to to pay for it (no other real estate company would offer its time and resources for free).
The useful handbook provided helpful details for purchasing the right real estate, and it wouldn’t make sense that ICE would put so much work and time into producing such material without requiring attendees to help recover the costs. Conclusion: No contract was formed on the basis that the terms of the offer ($20 fee) was not clearly communicated to Brian. The advertisement he saw on the LA Times was indeed not an offer. Was the fee for attending the seminar, or for the cost of the handbook? If it was for the seminar, it was not clearly communicated to Brian before he accepted (showing up to the seminar).
If it was for the handbook, it was not clearly communicated to him before he was given the handbook. Question 2: The issue is whether the United States Department of Health and Human Services’ (Department) prohibition of the sale of e-cigarettes in the U. S. Was constitutional. A law is unconstitutional if it violates the 5th amendment (procedural due process and substantive due process) and/or the 14th Amendment (equal protection). Business Law Midterm By teething continually related to a legitimate goal under minimal scrutiny (14th amendment).
Since e-cigarettes closely resemble tobacco cigarettes that have already been proven to result in a range of health issues, the Department has deemed this preventative measure to be related rationally to the health and safety of the public. Therefore the law was constitutional. It could also be argued that the prohibition violates substantive due process since an underlying right has been affected. The Supreme Court presumes valid any statute that regulates economic or social conditions. The regulation bans the sale of -cigarettes (an economic condition). The Court will only invalidate such a law if it is arbitrary or irrational.
The ban should be invalidated since it is irrational to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes based on the fact that e-cigarettes closely resemble tobacco cigarettes, yet its contents are not entirely identical to tobacco cigarettes. In fact, the Department has no concrete evidence that proves that e-cigarettes result in the same health issues as tobacco cigarettes have. In addition, the sale of tobacco cigarettes has not been banned, so the Department cannot adopt a ban of a product that bacon cigarettes when the original product this ban is modeled after (tobacco cigarettes) has not been banned.
Conclusion: The regulation to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes in the U. S. Is unconstitutional since it violates substantive due process under the 5th amendment. Question 3: While it is unlawful for users to disclose on Faceable the identities of the murder victim and the suspects because of their age, many users might see it as unethical not to disclose such information. Society has a right to know that such a crime has occurred, the victim be allowed to be honored, and the murderers (though innocent until proven guilty) should be disclosed so that the public may be aware for safety reasons.
Faceable is showing compassion if it is aware of and concerned about other people’s feelings in allowing such postings and discussions to occur on its website. It is also valuing integrity and responsibility. It wants to be seen as a trustworthy and honest website that discloses the truth. However, while it may be fair to users to be able to post and view posts like these, it may be seen as unfair to the murder victim and the suspects. Perhaps the murder victim may want privacy during this time of need.
Also, the suspects may want the opportunity to prove themselves innocent in court, and this information, having gone viral on Faceable, will affect their reputation. In addition, these kids were young, and have their entire lives ahead of them. If found guilty, these individuals would serve their time and would one day be released back into society. It would be unfair to Faceable to immortality their crime online and thus affect their future prospects. Faceable will have to balance the need for the confidentiality of those involved in the murder with the above mentioned values.
To resolve these ethical dilemmas, Faceable must look at the Blanchard/Pearl Test and the Front Page of the Newspaper Test. There are three questions asked in Blanchard/Pearl Test: 1) Is it fair? 2) Is it balanced? And 3) How does it make you (Faceable) feel? The Front Page of the Newspaper Test asks “How do you feel if what would likely feel that it would be unfair and unbalanced to those involved in the Chicago murder to have their identities exposed. In addition, I’m sure that the headline “Faceable Users Violates Law, Reveals The Identity of Chicago Murder Victim and Suspects” would not lead to a positive feeling.
In conclusion, Faceable should not allow users to post the identities of the murder victim and the suspects online, not only because it violates the Illinois law, but also because the confidentiality, privacy and fairness of these individuals should be taken into consideration. While it may be hard to control what gets posted online, Faceable may put measures in place that immediately removes such posts (including photos) once they are reported. In addition, Faceable can state that any posts that violates a law may be reported and removed immediately, as a preventative measure.