BUS FPX 3021 Assessment 2 Case Law Analysis and Executive Briefing
- High Quality FPX Sample Assessment
- Step-by-Step Guide to master FPX Assessment
- References (APA Format) for related Assessments
- Connect with Top professors for specific class
- Detailed (FAQs) related to Assessment.
- Express Delivery with in 24 hours.
Assessment Overview:
BUS FPX 3021 Assessment 2: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916) addressed manufacturer liability when an imperfect auto wheel caused injury to a consumer. The New York Court of Appeals ruled that Buick, as the manufacturer, owed a duty of care to end consumers, indeed, though the product was vended through a dealer. The case established the principle that manufacturers must ensure product safety and cannot shift liability to interposers. Immorally, it highlights the significance of prioritizing consumer safety, strict quality control, and commercial responsibility, which remain applicable in ultramodern business practices.
How to Pass BUS FPX 3021 Assessment 2 Case Law Analysis and Executive Briefing
- Clearly identify the case, parties, court, and decision date.
- Summarize the background: the defective wheel and injury to MacPherson.
- Identify the key legal question: manufacturer’s duty of care to end consumers.
- Explain the court ruling: Judge Cardozo’s decision holding Buick liable.
- Include dissenting opinions for completeness.
- Analyze business implications: strict quality control, cannot shift liability.
- Highlight ethical considerations: consumer safety as a moral and legal responsibility.
- Explain modern relevance: principle applies to current manufacturers and product liability.
- Use clear headings: Case, Background, Legal Question, Decision, Business Impact, Ethics, Modern Implications.
- Include at least 3 credible references in APA 7th edition and ensure proper grammar and clarity.
Sample Assessment:
Donald C. MacPherson and Buick Motor Company
Court and Date Decided:
New York Court of Appeals (Decided March 14, 1916)
BUS FPX 3021 Assessment 2: Background Facts:
MacPherson filed an action against Buick Motor Co. for injuries sustained due to a collapsed wheel of a 1909 Buick Runabout he bought from a dealer who acquired the vehicle from Buick Motor Co. The court set up that while the wheel wasn’t manufactured by Buick Motor Co., a reasonable examination by the company would have revealed its blights. Buick Motor Co. argued that the dealer was liable, but the court held that as a manufacturer, Buick Motor Co. had a stricter duty to ensure the safety of its final product.
Specific Disagreement and Ruling of the Court:
The maturity decision, led by Judge Cardozo, determined whether Buick Motor Co. owed a duty of care beyond the immediate purchaser. Drawing on precedent, the court distinguished between innately dangerous particulars and those rendered imminently dangerous due to careless manufacturing. It held that Buick Motor Co. was apprehensive that inaptly produced vehicles posed significant trouble and therefore had a duty to conduct tests to ensure safety. The differing opinion, represented by Chief Judge Bartlett, argued that the manufacturer of the defective wheel should be held liable, exonerating Buick Motor Co. of responsibility.
Conclusion – Importance to Business Law and Ethical Implications:
This ruling, although from 1916, remains applicable in understanding commercial liability. It establishes that companies are liable for products vended to consumers, regardless of element sourcing. This underscores the significance of strict quality control measures. Zipursky and Goldberg (2016) stress the ethical obligation of companies to prioritize consumer safety. Upholding the defendant’s argument would have set a precedent relieving manufacturers of liability once products are vended to interposers, a notion negative to ethical business practices. The differing opinion, if enforceable at any moment, could lead to obvious consequences, allowing pots to shirk liability through commercial structuring. Still, ethical conduct not only aligns with societal values but also enhances long-term profitability.
References (APA 7 Format)
- MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916)
- Zipursky, B. C., & Goldberg, J. C. P. (2016). The Myths of Macpherson. FLASH The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History.
- https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/faculty_scholarship/896/
Rubric Breakdown
| Criteria | Excellent (A) | Satisfactory (B-C) | Needs Improvement (D-F) |
| Case Identification | Clearly identifies case, parties, court, and date | Case identified, minor details missing | Case not clearly identified |
| Background & Facts | Comprehensive description of events and context | Facts included but not fully detailed | Background unclear or incomplete |
| Legal Issues & Question | Clearly states legal question(s) and duty of care concept | Legal issues present but somewhat vague | Legal issues missing or unclear |
| Court Decision & Reasoning | Explains decision, reasoning, and majority/dissent clearly | Decision explained but limited reasoning | Decision unclear or missing reasoning |
| Business & Legal Impact | Analyzes implications for modern businesses and contracts | Some impact analysis but limited | Little or no impact analysis |
| Ethical Considerations | Clearly identifies ethical obligations to consumers | Ethics mentioned but not clearly explained | Ethics missing or unclear |
| Organization & Clarity | Structured with headings and logical flow | Some structure but flow may be confusing | Poorly organized; hard to follow |
| References & APA Style | At least 3 credible references; correctly formatted | References included but minor APA errors | References missing or incorrect format |
Step-by-Step Guide
- Identify Case—MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co. (1916), New York Court of Appeals.
- Background Data – MacPherson was injured by a collapsed wheel on a 1909 Buick bought from a dealer; the wheel disfigurement was not directly from Buick.
- crucial legal question—Does a manufacturer owe a duty of care to end consumers beyond the immediate purchaser?
- Court Ruling—Judge Cardozo ruled Buick liable; manufacturers must ensure product safety regardless of interposers. Dissent argued only the wheel manufacturer should be liable.
- Business Counteraccusations—Companies must apply strict quality control; they cannot shift liability to dealers.
- Ethical Counteraccusations – Prioritizing consumer safety is an ethical responsibility; ethical practices align with societal values and long-term profitability.
- Applicability moment – Establishes precedent for product liability and commercial responsibility for end-user safety.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q1. What was the MacPherson v. Buick case about?
An imperfect wheel caused injury; the court examined manufacturer liability.
Q2 Who was held responsible?
Buick Motor Co. was held liable for icing product safety.
Q3: Why is this case important for business law?
It sets a precedent for manufacturer responsibility toward consumers.
Q4: What are the ethical assignments?
Companies must prioritize consumer safety and apply strict quality control.
Q5: How does this affect ultramodern businesses?
Manufacturers cannot shirk liability by dealing through interposers; ethical compliance protects character and gains.
Integrity Note
Note: Only use this assessment example for learning and structure purpose. Do not submit as your own work.
We are an independent resource and are not affiliated with Capella University.