Business Ethics Case Study

Business Ethics Case Study

Introduction

In the case presented, libel was evident because it took a permanent form in way of printing (Larson, 2003). The information about the Calder was printed in the National Enquirer (Cheeseman, 2010). Slander, on the hand, is made in speech or other temporary forms of communication such as gestures (Larson, 2003). In that regard, libel is a criminal offence while slander is only a civil wrong.

The purpose of this study is to carry out an identification of the parties as well as the type of case that was filed. In addition, the paper will discuss whether the defendants are subject to suit in California and give reasons to the same. It will also state whether it was ethical for the National Enquirer to avoid suit in California.

Issue

The issue raised in the case of Calder v Jones is whether the respondent, who is the resident of California, can sue Florida Corporation employees in court in California (Cheeseman, 2010). This is done with the aim of finding out if libel can be claimed through the assertion that California has personal jurisdiction over the residents of Florida.

The National Enquirer is a tabloid which is published by the American Media Inc (AMI). It has gone though several changes in the past years and it known for exaggerating and engaging in fabrication of information. It mainly deals with news about gossip, celebrity, as well as crime all with the aim of hitting sales.   

It was unethical for the National Enquirer to try to avoid law suit in California. The simple reason to this is that the newspaper should realize its responsibility of offering responsible journalism to its readers and be ready to defend itself whenever it is questioned over its obligations. Additionally, according to business ethics, the newspaper should act according to standards of ethics in publication by respecting the interests of individual members of the public. It should thus be ready to face any liability charges against it if it goes beyond its scope of duty.

The defendants are subject to suit in California. This is because California is the major point of the story as well as the harm that was suffered by the petitioner. In addition, a state has the capability of exercising its jurisdiction over a defendant. This is possible if the state has the ability of exercising its personal jurisdiction over a party that results in effects in a state through an act carried out in a different state or region and with reference to any cause of action that arises from such effects.

Also, the libelous story revolved around the activities of the California resident as well as hurting the reputation of the Calder who was based in California. In addition to that, the sources of information were derived in California and the harm was experienced in the same State. Hence, California was the major point of harm as presented in the story. Moreover, negligence was directed towards Calder as well as the state of California. Furthermore, since it was Calder who was injured, she does not have to go to Florida in order to sue individuals in that state who, with their knowledge, caused harm in California.

Conclusion

The defendants are subject to suit in California. This is because California is the major point of the story as well as the harm that was suffered by the petitioner. In addition, a state has the capability of exercising its jurisdiction over a defendant.

References

Cheeseman, R. (2010). The Legal Environment of Business and Online Commerce: Business Ethics, E-Commerce, and International Issues. Prentice hall.

Larson, A. (2003). Defamation, Libel, and Slander Law. Retrieved November 6, 2010, from http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html