Business Law

Student’s Name

Institution of Affiliation

Question 1: Engagement Ring.

The question as to whether an engagement is a contract for marriage in particular if an engagement ring is presented has been controversial with some people claiming that it is a contract. However, this is not true, in that there is no contract for marriage. Engagement rings are treated as conditional gifts in which a person gives their partner in the period of courtship. Anything can happen before marriage, and the couple may call it off. According to many states, an engagement ring is a conditional gift that is conditioned upon marriage between two willing parties. Therefore, if the condition does not occur, that is, the parties don’t end up in marriage, then the gift is not completed. It would be assumed that the gift never reached the intended recipient, and therefore, the ownership of the gift reverts to the original owner or the individual who gave and who is presumed to have bought the ring.

In an engagement, many people may do it without the involvement of a lawyer, and it may just be considered as a promissory note by the partners that they will be in marriage in a few months or years. Under this approach, it is difficult for legal action to be taken, and therefore, the courts refuse to consider the party responsible for the breach in a failed agreement. It should be noted that in many cases, the courts as well may not be able to identify the precise reason for ending the relationship as it considered private affairs. It would be wrong if a court to wade in murky waters in trying to assess faults in a broken relationship. If the engagement ring was offered by the family of one of the partners, it should be returned to them as it never served the intended purpose.

Question 2: Corporate Social Justice

In Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, 170 N.W. 668, the court was right in that the company owed a duty to the shareholders of the Ford Motor Company to operate his business to profit his shareholders rather than the community as a whole or the employees. However, corporate has a moral responsibility to society, and this means that they cannot only operate on the principle of shareholder value alone. The shareholders are not the only ones that play a crucial role in the success of the business as without the customers and the employees. It would be much difficult to achieve the much-desired profit value by the shareholders.

Having the company benefiting the community and the employees is an advertising strategy that might be a long-term goal for the company to increase the pool of customers, which will eventually increase the profit margin. Therefore, if I were given the opportunity to run a such a business, my primary priority would not be to the shareholders but to the employees and the community as it is more of an investment and their contribution is not only money but also the growth of the company’s image which have the eventual results of business expansion. When the court states that the company should concentrate on the shareholders and not the entire community, it fails to recognize the corporate’s social justice responsibility in which all human beings are treated based on the concepts of human rights and equality. Everyone has the right to benefit from the company without discrimination.