Business Ethics Case

Business Ethics Case

Business Ethics Case
BUS/415
May 2, 2011

1. The main legal issue for the court to decide in the Calder v. Jones case is defamation, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress of Shirley Jones.

2. The basis for jurisdiction of the case of International Shoe Co. v Washington is that the International Shoe Co. needs to pay for their employee’s unemployment compensation since they are engaged in interstate commerce. This does not relieve the company from paying to a state’s unemployment compensation fund. This is referred to as a long-arm statute in which a state’s jurisdiction to nonresidents who were not served a summons from that state.

3. The basis for jurisdiction in the Calder case is that since the National Enquirer was circulated around California then she had jurisdiction to sue them in the state of California. Also since her career was in California the article could ruin her career in that state. This is an in personam jurisdiction.

4. The Calder case expanded on the International Shoe Co. case by showing that no matter what state a company is in, if that company is selling products in another state they are liable for their misuse of the law. In the Shoe case the company needed to have their employees covered by unemployment even though there was no real office there, but the products were being sold there. In the Calder case since the Enquirer was being sold in California then they were liable for the comments and articles that they wrote.

5. In my opinion the implications of these cases for e-commerce are that no matter what state a business is in, if that business is doing business in another state they need to follow that states laws and rules as well as their headquarters states law. With e-commerce so popular right now I can see where problems might occur if the business tries to get away with something in another state.

6. I do not feel that it would have been ethical for the National Enquirer...