MGMT 520 Week 8 Final exam Answers Set 3 1.
List any bases Robins & Robins could sue Casings, Inc., under contract theory ONLY for the damages caused by the explosives in their drugs, over and above the cost of the capsule shells. (short answer question)
TCO B. The FDA discovers that, during the public comment process, Robins & Robins bribed one of the members of the administrative panel that decided to pull the rule from consideration. The member of the panel was removed and is being charged criminally. As a result, the FDA
immediately implements an emergency order that puts into effect the “tracking bar” requirement
and makes the rule retroactive, but only to ...view middle of the document...
State any defences any of the three would have. Analyze the success of the defences.
TCO A. It is discovered that Robins & Robins knew about the tainted medication 2 months earlier than they announced the recall. They hid it and, in fact, sent out contract buyers to try to
buy up all of the medication off the shelves. Their “fake” recall failed. Using the Blanchard and
Peale method of analyzing ethical dilemmas, analyze the ethical dilemma faced by the CEO of Robins & Robins for the fact that they saved 35 cents/package and are now in the middle of a major, life-
threatening recall. Analyze their “fake” recall as well. Show all of the steps of the mod
el and give a recommendation to the CEO of what to do now that the deaths are escalating. What is
the “right” thing for the CEO to do in this case?
TCO I. A Canadian citizen whose son (resident of Ontario) died from the medication sues Robins & Robins in a California court. The court there is well known for being victim friendly and providing huge payouts to victim families. In Canada, the cap on nonpecuniary damages is around $300,000. Punitive damages in Canada are rarely allowed. Robins & Robins moves to dismiss the case under the theory of sovereign immunity. Will Robins & Robins win this motion using this theory? Why or why not? (short answer question) (Points : 15)
TCO E. Pastor Forester claims his firing was illegal because it was based on his being a convicted felon. His contract with the school provides him with defense coverage for any acts he takes while working for the school. Anna and Lisa sue Pastor Forester and the school for sexual harassment and discrimination, and Pastor Forester requests the school pay for his defense. Discuss whether Anna and Lisa will be successful in their claim of sexual harassment and...