Business Law and Ethics - Assignment Example

INTRODUCTION BUSINESS LAW AND ETHICS Student’s Name: Code + Course name Professor’s name University City, State Date Question One Issue The company has developed a drug that will reduce rheumatism to a significant level. However, one of the tests conducted on the drug revealed that it had possible side effects. Following the decision of the company to verify the side effects, it requested a confidential report from other scientists regarding the alleged side effects. The company paid $500000 to each scientist to develop the report. The company also required the scientists to sign a document promising that they will never disclose the content of the report to any other person except the company’s Board of Directors. The scientists consented to the agreement and the company proceeded with developing and marketing the new drug because of the significant profits associated with it. Rule The general roles of a pharmacist encompass compounding and dispensing drugs, preparation of suitable drug administration dosages, and to exhibit pharmaceutical patient care in the industry. In essence, it is the responsibility of the pharmacist and the pharmaceutical company to collect, identify, purify, isolate, synthesise, standardize and conduct quality control and clinical trials on their medicinal substances (Noordin 2012). Apparently, the unavoidable physician-patient relationship influences the actions of pharmacists. Moreover, the quest of pharmaceutical companies to survive in a society that heightens the value for money advocates for the non-disclosure principle of the side effects associated with drug use. Analysis The Rogers vs. Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479 case suffices to be an example of a case involving the duty of disclosure in the Australian High Court (Dwyer 1997). The issue pertained the failure of the defendant to warn the plaintiff regarding the “sympathetic ophthalmia” risk that she faced in the event of a surgical operation conducted on her partially blind left eye. Based on the judgment of the judges regarding the case, it was appropriate for the medical practitioner to warn the patient about the material risks inherently associated with any treatment. Apparently, the failure of the pharmaceutical company to disclose the side effects associated with the rheumatism drug implies that the physicians will also fail to reveal the side effects of the drug thus subjecting the "unlucky" patients to its side effects. The pre-market assessment of the medicinal products is imperative prior to the marketing of the product to the market. The evaluation ensures that the marketed drugs do not hurt the lives of individuals. Moreover, there are ethical issues associated with dispensing drugs. As a result, a pharmaceutical company or a pharmacist should not dispense drugs just like a vending machine but rather should provide all the relevant information linked to the drug. The pharmacist should provide pertinent information regarding the side effects of the drug to the physician. It is also proper for the drug manufacturers to avail all information upon the development of new drugs as is the case in the above scenario. The new information about the drug may also include the interaction of the drug with other drugs and with food. Apparently, unique situations such as renal failure cases require particular drug administration recommendations (Noordin 2012). Therefore, it is the responsibility of the pharmaceutical company to avail such information. Conclusion It is unethical for the pharmaceutical company to fail to disclose side-effects information regarding the new drug for rheumatism. Instead of hiding the information, it would be appropriate for the company to conduct specific drug administration tests to deal with the side effects in different patient situations. However, it is good clinical practice for the pharmacist to refrain from dispensing drugs that would impact adversely on the patient based on the “pharmacist professional judgment”. Question Two Issue Bill, a restaurant owner, promised to pay Quentin university fees if the son agreed to work in his restaurant on Sundays. However, Quentin was a talented tennis player and wanted to attend tennis coaching held every second Sunday. Quentin weighed the two options of working in the restaurant and getting his university fees paid by his father and attending the tennis coaching. In the end, he decided to work in the restaurant in the first year of his study on the account that the father will pay for his university fees. However, in the second year, Quentin decides to take a year off study to travel overseas; a decision that upsets his father compelling him to stop paying his university fees. Rule In the USA, Australia and other Western countries, it is evident that it is not the natural obligation of a father to pay college fees for his child provided that the child has already attained the eighteenth birthday. In the above case, Quentin is 19-years old indicating that he has already reached the majority age. Therefore, it is proper to state that it is not the legal duty of the father to pay for the son’s or daughter’s college or university fees upon the latter’s attainment of the majority age. Therefore, the maintenance amount that the child should benefit from the parent beyond the eighteenth birthday is not a legal responsibility of the parent; but rather a moral responsibility. Analysis There have been several cases involving the responsibility of parents towards meeting the university or college fees for their children after the attainment of their eighteenth birthday. In most of the cases, it is evident that the court requires the father to pay for the maintenance fees of the child beyond the majority age if the latter is still in high school. However, the parent can stop the payments upon the child's completion of secondary school studies. In the Atwood v. Atwood, 643 S.W. 2 263 (Ky. Ct. App. 1982) case, the judges decided that there was no legal duty of the non-custodial parent to support their children after their attainment of the majority age. Even though the parent has the responsibility of providing maintenance amounts to the child after the latter’s eighteenth birthday, the maintenance costs should not include the college or university fees of the child. In the Litel v. litel, 490 So.2d 741, 743 (La. Ct. App. 1986) case, the judges ruled that it was not the natural obligation of the father to cater for the college or university education costs of a child that has attained his eighteenth birthday (Marzano-Lesnevich & Laterra 2009). Therefore, Quentin should understand that Bill does not have a natural responsibility to cater for his university fees since he has already attained the majority age. However, the situation could have different if Quentin was 17 years old. At that age, even though he would be pursuing the university education, it would be the legal responsibility of his father to pay for his university fees since he would be a minor. Therefore, if Quentin wants the father to continue paying his university fees, he has to abort his mission of travelling overseas for one year. Conclusion A father has the legal responsibility to pay for the college or university costs of his child if the latter has not attained the majority age. However, the attainment of the eighteenth birthday relieves the parent from the legal responsibility of paying the university or college fees for his/her son. It is the moral liability of the father to pay for his son's university fees after the latter individual attains the majority age. However, before the father commits himself to the liability, the child should also abide by the requirements of the parent; provided that the provisions do not violate the rule of law. Question Three Issue Following the decision of Samantha to advertise her Holden Monaro car for sale for $15000, Terrence developed the interest to purchase the car. After taking the car for a test drive, Terrence remembers that Holden Monaro cars have a problem with a rusted suspension that is not visible from a friend's experience. Upon inquiring whether the car in question may have a similar problem with its suspension, Samantha provides the assurance that the condition of the car’s suspension is excellent. Terrence believes in her words and agrees to the contract terms by paying the $15000 and driving away in the car. However, the agreement did not include the condition of the suspension. One week later, Terrence realises that the car had a badly rusted suspension. Rule Besides being unlawful to provide misleading information about a product, it is also unethical. Misleading information entails the provision of misleading descriptions or false claims regarding the possible supply or provision of goods and services. It also includes the provision of misleading information regarding the standards, value, grade or quality of products or services. Unconscionable conduct is also part of unfair business activities in trade or commerce. Unconscionable conduct in business practice encompass all those business activities that are unfair, unscrupulous, unjust, oppressive, unreasonable or harsh (Keogh 1999). Analysis Apparently, even though Samantha did not include details pertaining the condition of the badly rusted suspension in the car sale contract, she concealed the information despite Terrence’s expression of concern regarding the poor state of the suspension of Holden Monaro cars. Stating that the suspension was in an excellent condition yet it was badly rusted is a misrepresentation of product information that equates to the provision of misleading information. The primary objective of Samantha was to convince Terrence to purchase the car. It is proper to opine that she had some knowledge regarding the state of the suspension after Terrence expressed his concern regarding the product. In the TPC v. Pacific Dunlop Limited (1994) ATPR 41-307 case, a manufacturer sold stocks labelled “pure cotton” yet it was not pure cotton. In the case, it is evident that the manufacturer provided misleading information since customers purchased stock thinking that it was pure cotton yet it was impure. Moreover, in the Dawson v. Motor Tyre Service Pty Ltd (1999) 95 FCR 302; 166 ALR 74 case, the motor repairer overstated the repair services that the car required thus resulting in a financial loss for the car owner (NSW 2010). Overstatement of the service requirements by the motor repairer was an evidence of the provision of misleading information for selfish interests. In the above case, it is also evident that Samantha’s intention was to sell the car to Terrence without considering whether the buyer would incur financial loss associated with the repair of the rusted suspension that had been stated as being in perfect condition. Conclusion In most cases, companies or sellers of products and services do not include the misleading information in the contracts since they are always aware of the misrepresented information. In the above case, it is evident that Samantha exhibited unconscionable conduct when she provided misleading information regarding the condition of the car’s suspension. Even though she did not include the status of the suspension in the contract, she should compensate Terrence for the additional financial loss that the buyer incurred in servicing the suspension. Reference List Dwyer, P 1997, ‘Pharmacy Practice Today: An Increased Exposure to Legal Liability’, UNSWLJ, no. 20, pp. 724. Keogh, J 1999, ‘The Case Against unconscionable conduct’, International Real Estate Society Conference ’99. Marzano-Lesnevich, M & Laterra, S A 2009, ‘Child Support and College: What is the Correct Result’, J. Am. Acad. Matrimonial Law., no. 22, pp. 335. Noordin, M I 2012, ‘Ethics in Pharmaceutical Issues’, vol. 83. NSW 2010, ‘Fair Trading: Supporting local communities'. Available from http://www.fairtrading.nsw.gov.au/ftw/Businesses/Acceptable_business_conduct/False_or_misleading_claims.page Read More