Some questions about Business Laws?

Question

I have some True/False questions from Business Law class that are tricky for me. Could anyone help me answer these questions?
Thank you so much.

True/False:
1. The jury, being the sole finder of fact in a civil case, is free in the course of its deliberations, in arriving at the verdict, to disregard the judge's instructions and pronouncements as to the law.

2. As part of the checks and balances of our federal system, the President has inherent powers to determine the constitutionality of actions of the executive branch of government and, thus, can refuse to abide by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court questioning the President's authority, particularly if the President believes such actions are in the best interests of the American people.

3. In a diversity case brought in the U.S. District Court of Western Washington, wherein it is alleged that the defendent has breached plaintiff's contract for consulting services, the court will apply the federal common law.

sorry, 2 more questions.
Thank you so so much.

4. If the parties have written into their contract that any disputes arising under the contract shall be submitted to arbitration, the parties must in the event of a dispute submit it to arbitration before the American Arbitration Association, but the decision of the arbitrator will be advisory only and not legally binding on the parties.

5. The pre-trial motion for summary judgment will be granted if, as to the legal issue presented to the court for decision, there is no genuine issue of a material fact that could be brought before a jury and, therefore, it is pointless to go to trial on that issue.

Answer 1

I'll take a stab, but I'm not 100% sure about any of my answers.

1. First, it's not the case that a jury is a sole finder of fact. Very often, the judge serves the role of fact finder, and there is no jury. But this does not seem to be what your question is asking. So, no a jury cannot ignore pronouncements as to the law. The jury must follow the jury instructions, and is certainly not free to make a decision based on something other than the facts and law as presented to it. When a jury does go its own way, it's called jury nullification.

2. The president most definitely does NOT have the final determination on the constitutionality of his (or her?) actions. The US Supreme Court determined in the case of Marbury v. Madison that IT is the final determiner of constitutionality. It is part of the system of checks and balances that the sup ct perform this function.

3. There is no such thing as federal common law. The federal court will apply the law of the state in which the case is heard.

So, to summarize, all answers are FALSE.

EDIT: I can't answer question 4, but question 5 appears to be TRUE. A motion for summary judgment is generally granted when there is no issue of material fact. If there is no issue of fact, there is no need for trial.

I'll edit this again to soften my answer to #1. Clearly, if jury nullification is allowed, then juries can disregard some things in making their determination. I lean towards deferring to the real lawyer below, but then I wonder, if the opposing side is granted a JNOV, isn't that taking the jury's power to disregard the law away from it, and telling the jury it must apply the law? Overall, this is a complicated question, and I suggest that if the guy below me is a real lawyer, go with his answer. :)

Answer 2

The answers may not be the same for all districts and circuits.

1. True, but a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be filed and granted if the judge thinks the jury was totally off the wall.

2. No. The Supreme Court is the sole decider of what is Constitutional. The "best interests of the American people" is not a constitutional standard.

3. False. There is a dispute about whether there is or can be federal common law, but in a diversity case, the law of the relevant state applies. (Keep in mind that it is harder and harder to bring "pure" diversity cases.)

Answer 3

Representing something as one ingredient and promoting it as yet another is, in layman's words stated as "bait and turn". searching on the position he offered the object, he will have distinct rights/household initiatives. some states have guidelines that provide for important consequences, at the same time as different international places/provinces/states require purely alternative or refund of the acquisition fee. to respond to this properly we would want to wish to entice close the position the object replaced into offered, lower than what situations, what further Mr. Weinberg to the salesman, and precisely what the salesman stated to compel Mr. Weinberg to make the decision to purchase the table. we would want to also want to entice close even if the salesman knew that the table replaced into no longer made up of cherry, or if he fairly believed it replaced into authentic.