The Role of the United States Constitution and the United States Legal System in Business Regulation Essays

The Role of the United States Constitution and the United States Legal System in Business Regulation Essays The Role of the United States Constitution and the United States Legal System in Business Regulation Essay The Role of the United States Constitution and the United States Legal System in Business Regulation Essay This paper will describe the role of the United States Constitution and the United States legal system in business regulation. The recent business regulations in US businesses will be outlined and further explanation on how the economic growth created by private business and how the US government could not sustain itself. This paper will examine an example from an article which demonstrates how a Constitutional right affects a business and how the legal system is used with respect to recognizing or protecting that right. The US government has regulated businesses since the colonial times. The fight for independence in the United States made the need for more responsive and effective business regulations. In the nineteenth century, the US grew to be a world power and the economy became more industrialized. Business laws were passed by the federal government that favored social reforms and not towards the big businesses. Less regulation for business and the public was introduced in the twentieth century and had expanded until the 1970s. Deregulation on the state of California’s economy and several corporate accounting scandals surfaced in the twenty first century raised federal interventions into business practices. Under the Articles of Confederation, central government was created. These articles lacked certain regulations between the states and did not enforced contractual obligations. Because of these flaws, the US Constitution created the current form of moderate federal system of protection and ended state tariff regulation. Several years later, the federal government guaranteed protection of the due process of law against national currency, security for contracts, and making gifts of land. Enforcing the contracts and property rights are regulated by the government and are the basics that US business could not function without them. The US government could not sustain by itself without the economic growth created by private business. Deep concerns with the potential political concerns over the credit card interest rates by the White House and Congress have grown for many Americans. Based on the economic conditions are weak in industries and the overall general US economy. Both organizations assume their powers and responsibility in protection the consumer can lower credit card rates and increase regulations. Congress’ role was defined the movement of goods between states and abandoned ever since 1937 with Supreme Court on the Commerce Clause in the Constitution. Several issues on regulations of credit cards by the Federal Reserve Board are being addressed in this article. In 2010, they will be responsible in making the decisions and regulating limiting credit rate increase. In the past Congress was out of the constitutional boundaries to regulate local and state matters on credit care rates and now the Federal Reserve will be empowered to do so. The concerns on how the Constitution can be overlooked and where is the constitutional authority is derived from is becoming an every day topic of discussion. The US government was created under the Constitution and it specifically stated on limited powers and specific details for the federal government and Congress. And it’s unfortunate that it will no longer be respected as it as been for the past 150 years in our nation’s history. On a state level, credit card regulations will be beneficial for them. It is clearly and definitively a decision to be discussed by the states only if the regulation is needed. The responsibility of the states can be closed off, powerful and independent. More federal regulations, interventions and control on finances are becoming a common practice on a day to day basis. The prediction is the Federal Reserve will gain more regulatory power over the US financial industry in order to protect the consumer. In the 10th Amendment states that bringing issues not given to the federal government back to the states and the people and if all people involved with law making can understand and not ignore, the people can be protected if everyone follows, respects and protect the Constitution of the United States. In conclusion, the first section of this paper provided a definition of the purpose and function of role of the United States Constitution and the United States legal system in business regulation. The next section explained how a current article demonstrates how a Constitutional right affects a business. Finally federal and state regulations may not regulate alike and can be self contradictory as well as confusing to all business community. They both can be relatively vague to leave the Constitutional rights of all US business. The United States is one of the nations depends on private entrepreneurs for the overall business welfare. Intentional Tort: While a tort, is defined as any wrong doing to somebody involving breach of a civil duty, an intentional tort is defined as a civil wrong committed intentionally by the tortfeaser. In simple terms it means causing harm to anybody intentionally. Elements of the intentional tort includes: intent, act, cause, and harmful or offensive contact. Few of the common intentional torts include: * Assault * Battery * Conversion * False imprisonment * Trespass to land * Trespass to chattels (Personal property) * Intentional infliction of emotional distress * Fraud * Invasion of privacy Real life example includes the Fisher v Carrousel Motor Hotel, Inc Case of Texas in 1967. The plaintiff here was standing with a plate and one of the defendant’s employees snatched the plate out of his hand and made a racist remark. He didn’t touch him physically but the plaintiff was hurt emotionally. This was judged as a case of battery under intentional tort. The court finally said that â€Å"personal indignity† is the essence of battery, so it doesn’t matter whether or not there was physical contact or injury. It mentioned the act as a battery and the plaintiff was entitled to receive damages for the mental suffering caused to him. Negligence Tort Negligence tort includes activities that have caused harm to somebody due to carelessness rather than doing any intentional harm. Negligence tort can be proved with just three elements conduct, causation and damages. Real Life example of the Negligence Tort is the Stone v. Bolton case of 1950. Stone (P) was struck in the head by a ball that flew out of a cricket field across the street from her home. Stone sued Bolton (D), the owner of the cricket field for public nuisance and common law negligence on the grounds that the field did not have a fence high enough to prevent balls from flying out of he field. Bolton claimed that only 6-10 balls had escaped the field in the previous 30 years and it was therefore an unforeseeable risk. P appealed the trial court’s judgment in favor of D and the appeals court reversed in favor of P. This was a case of negligence tort. Strict Liability Torts Strict liability simply refers to legal responsibility for all kind of damage s caused to the other person even if the person found guilty did it intentionally or by mistake. While other torts needs to be proved with sufficient proven evidences, strict liability could be imposed on a party without a finding of fault. The claimant here only needs to prove the occurrence of the tort and that the defendant was responsible. Real life example: Greenman v Yuba Power Products Pl Greenman purchased a combination power tool that could be used as a saw, drill, and wood lathe. He saw it demonstrated and read the brochure prepared by the manufacturer. He subsequently purchased the necessary attachments to use the Shopsmith as a lathe. After he had worked on the piece of wood several times it flew out of the machine and struck him in the forehead, inflicting serious injuries. 0 months later he gave the retailer and manufacturer written notice of claimed breaches of warranties and filed a complaint. Expert testified that inadequate set screws were used to hold parts of the machine together, and there were other positive ways of fastening the parts which would have prevented the accident. A manufacturer is strictly liable in tort when an article he places on the market, knowing that it is to be used without ins pection for defects, proves to have a defect that causes an injury to a human being. Court Rationale: Rules defining and governing warranties that were developed to meet the needs of commercial transactions cannot properly be invoked to govern the manufacturer’s liability to those injured by their defective products unless those rules also serve the purposes for which such liability is imposed. The purpose of such liability is to insure that the costs of injuries resulting from defective products are borne by the manufacturer that put such products on the market rather than by the injured persons who are powerless to protect themselves. Implicit in the machine’s presence on the market was a representation that it would safely do the jobs for which it was built. To establish the manufacturer’s liability it was sufficient that PL proved that he was injured while using the Shopsmith in a way in which it was intended to be used as a result of a defect in design and manufacture of which PL was not aware that made the Shopsmith unsafe for its intended use. References: * Government Regulation of Business. Answers. September 7, 2009. Retrieved on September 7, 2009. answers. com/topic/government-regulation-of-business * Trampling the Constitutional Role of Regulation. Tenth Amendment Center. September 6, 2009. Retrieved on September 6, 2009 * tenthamendmentcenter. com/2009/05/09/trampling-the-constitutional-role-of-regulation/ * 4lawschool. com/torts/yuba. shtml * lawnix. com/cases/stone-bolton. html * http://lawschool. mikeshecket. com/torts/fishervcarrouselmotorhotelinc. html * http://www2. gsu. edu/~rmip zb/torts. htm