The Legal Environment of Business

A Critical Thinking Approach 6th Edition Nancy K. Kubasek Bartley A. Brennan M. Neil Browne

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-1

CHAPTER 1

Critical Thinking and Legal Reasoning

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-2

Objectives
1. 2. 3. 4. The Importance of Critical Thinking A Critical Thinking Model The Critical Thinking Steps Using Critical Thinking to Make Legal Reasoning Come Alive 5. Applying the Critical Thinking Approach

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-3

Legal Reasoning Reasoning with a Purpose

Example:
Do tobacco manufacturers have liability for the deaths of smokers?

Conclusion - A position or stance on a particular issue

Example: Yes accountability for their product No freedom of choice
Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 1-4

The 8 Steps to Legal Reasoning

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-5

Critical thinking focuses on the quality of someones reasoning

Definition:
Understand the argument Apply evaluative criteria Assess the quality of the reasoning

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-6

The Demand for Better Critical Thinking Skills:

Competitive Pressure

Business Ethics
Understanding the Law

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-7

A Critical Thinking Case

United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 2004

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-8

 Facts:
Martha Stewart sold stocks on 12/27/01
ImClone announced FDA rejection on 12/28/01 Stewart and Bacanovic convicted Expert witness accused of perjury

Perjury should be grounds for new trial

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-9

Issues:
When can a court grant a new trial? Does perjury of a witness mean that defendants should have a new trial? Do the regulations associated with Rule 33 and relevant case law permit the defendant to have a new trial?

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-10

Reasons and Conclusion:

Reasons: Under Rule 33, perjury is not sufficient basis for new trial, unless: The government knew about it. The perjured testimony was material.

Without the testimony, acquittal was likely.

Conclusion: Defendants did not show evidence of these conditions. Jury would have still convicted. Motion for a new trial is denied.
Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 1-11

 Rules of law cited in the Martha Stewart case: Rule 33 and regulations United States v. Wallach Case law

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-12

 Ambiguity Capable of having more than one meaning Courts can grant a new trial if:
it is in the interest of justice or reasonable likelihood (probability that the alleged perjury could have affected the verdict)

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-13

Clarifying the Primary Ethical Norms

ETHICAL NORM FORMS
To act without restriction from rules imposed by others. To possess the capacity or resources to act as one wishes.

Freedom Security

To provide the order in business relationships that permits predictable plans to be effective To be safe from those wishing to interfere with your property rights To achieve the psychological condition of self-confidence such that risks are welcomed
To receive the product of your labor To provide resources in proportion to need To treat all humans identically, regardless of class, race, gender, age, and so on To possess anything that someone else was willing to grant you

Justice

Efficiency

To maximize the amount of wealth in our society. To get the most from a particular input. To minimize costs.
1-14

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

Martha Stewart Case

Analogies
Is the strength of the independent evidence found in the Stewart case equivalent to that in the Wallach case?

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-15

Missing Information
Was the jurys verdict affected by the perjured testimony? What was the congressional intent behind Rule 33? Are there any similar cases in which the court has ruled differently?

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-16

Using Critical Thinking to Make Legal Reasoning Come Alive

Facts: Just the Relevant Facts
Issue: The Question of the Case Reasons and Conclusion: The Answer Relevant Rules of Law: The Legal Context Ambiguity: The Limits of Words Ethical Norms: The Basis for Evaluation Legal Analogies: The Role of Precedent Missing Information: Practical Limits
Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 1-17

Applying the Critical Thinking Approach

Use systematic, methodical approach Apply to all cases you read Apply also to other news and editorial pieces

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-18

Objectives

1. 2. 3. 4.

The Importance of Critical Thinking A Critical Thinking Model The Critical Thinking Steps Using Critical Thinking to Make Legal Reasoning Come Alive 5. Applying the Critical Thinking Approach

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall

1-19

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America.

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Prentice Hall

Copyright 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. publishing as Prentice Hall 1-20