Kelli Stojic Business Law Midterm Paper 1. Arbitration is when two or more persons enter into agreement to allow a third party to resolve a dispute. The third party is neutral in the situation and often an expert around the topic of dispute. This method typically keeps both evidence and decisions private so is preferred in many business disputes (Meiners, p.57). It is the most formal of the three main alternative dispute resolution methods and the arbitrator’s final decision will stand. Entering into the process of arbitration is a binding contract itself and requires both parties to accept the award of the arbitrator (Meiners, p. 63) In this scenario, arbitration would be helpful because the arbitrator would likely be an expert in small business disputes and would be able to make an informed decision for the future of USA Books without the added bias of personal involvement. Negotiation is comparatively informal, voluntary method of alternative dispute resolution with no set procedures. The parties in the dispute may act on their own behalf or choose to be represented by a lawyer, but the primary distinction for this method is that the parties choose to settle the matter between themselves as opposed to using a mediator, arbiter, or judge to make the final decision (Meiners, p. 61). Negotiations require compromise and if both parties do not act in good faith, will not succeed. Due to the heightened emotional involvement of many civil disputes, negotiations are better handled through third parties. In the situation between John and Mary, negotiations could be very useful if handled properly. Both parties care about the business and want what is best for it. Because their opinions differ, bringing in a third party to negotiate buyout terms or to renegotiate the partnership if possible, would be a better first step than jumping straight to filing suits. If they were to take the first stage of negotiation seriously, they could both create business plans as they see fit, then present them to each other and a third party could help find commonalities and/or places for potential compromise, helping John and Mary negotiate their way to a continued future as business partners. Mediation is the middle ground between negotiating and arbitration. Mediation brings a third party in not make the final decision in a dispute but to help resolve the conflict before further legal action becomes necessary. Like both other discussed methods of alternative dispute resolution, mediation is entered into voluntarily (Meiners, p. 62). Mediation is common in marital, labor, and other contract disputes. The chosen mediator walks the parties through the information, asks questions, and encourages them to come to agreement. If they do, a contract is drafted outlining the agreement and both parties sign. John and Mary could find success with mediation given the motivation of both parties to avoid Court, but they would need to find a competent mediator who could untangle the interests of the business from the individual interests and emotional involvement John and Mary (and Bob) are bringing to the discussion. The differences between arbitration, negotiation, and mediation lie firmly in the power held in the process. The parties retain total control in negotiations, recognize their limits with mediation, and forfeit control in arbitration. It is similar to young siblings fighting over a toy- the kids may cycle through their solution toolboxes with no success, so an adult is brought in to bring other techniques to help them find a solution. If the fighting continues, the adult may exercise authority and either decide who gets the toy or remove the toy from the room entirely. If a suitable resolution is found through negotiations, both children can move on with their play. Mediation still results in the ability to move on contentedly, but takes longer. Arbitration often means neither child will get what they want but because they could not find a resolution on their own, one was found for them. 2. Michigan violated USA Books’ First Amendment rights pertaining to political donations and speech first when they issued the prohibitive letter and again when they arrested Mary for her donations. First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (535 U.S. 765) established precedence protecting the rights of businesses to make political contributions (Meiners, p. 74). In 2002, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was enacted in an effort to diminish the influence of large corporations and wealthy donors on the political landscape, but as stated in Kennedy’s opinion on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, it is a violation of First Amendment Rights to limit political spending (Laura Temme, 2020) and the dissemination of information related to campaigns. The Michigan AG also violated USA Books Fourth Amendment Rights against illegal search and seizure when they entered the business without a warrant to search for evidence. Furthermore, the receipts found would not be admissible in court, so the arrest would also be unwarranted (Meiners, p. 79). Because the AG violated multiple rights in this situation, they would also be subject to the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically related to penalties derived from the “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, [and] shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress” (Meiners, p. 83). 3. Regarding the issue of the slip and fall, the hotel would be liable for the event if it could be proven that hotel staff knew the banana peel was there but did not remove it. Given that, typically, banana peels are not likely to be found on the floor of a hotel lobby, its presence would an abnormality and not necessarily a sign of carelessness (Dearie, 2022). Also, if video evidence is available, it could be argued that perhaps John was distracted and not aware of his surroundings. Depending on the facts presented, a liability claim in this case could go either way. In the issue of the jammed lock, however, the hotel could be found liable for John’s false imprisonment because failure to maintain safe operating facilities is cause for negligence. However, the damages incurred may not offset the cost of litigation, especially if the Scottville Inn has limited liability. John could sue the hotel for intentional infliction of emotional distress given the length of time he was locked in the room. He would not have much of a case if it was a short term situation, but two days is an extended period of time and would carry weight in court. Even if the faulty lock was not intentional, the failure to maintain the facilities was an inaction taken by the hotel, so it could be liable for damages incurred because of the lock. The proof that the “defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous”, as required by Michigan State Law (State of Michigan) would be difficult to prove, because basic negligence does not always equate to extreme and dangerous conduct. The hotel’s lawsuit for defamation by libel would likely be unsuccessful unless John spread misinformation intending to harm the hotel’s reputation. If his post was truthful and he was not tied up in other litigation related to the incident requiring silence on the subject, his First Amendment Rights would grant him favor in this case (State of Michigan, 1961). Bibliography Dearie, J. P. (2022, March 17). Who's Resonsible if You Slip and Fall at a Hotel? Retrieved from The Dearie Law Firm, P.C.: https://www.dearielaw.com/news-insights/slip-and-fall/whosresponsible-if-you-slip-and-fall-at-ahotel/#:~:text=Hotel%20slip%20and%20fall%20accidents Laura Temme, E. (2020, October 30). Citizens United v. FEC Case Summary. Retrieved from FindLaw: https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/what-really-happened-incitizens-united-v--fec-.html#:~:text=Passed%20in%202002,%20the%C2%A0Bipartisan State of Michigan. (1961). MCL- Section 600.2911. Retrieved from Michigan Legislature: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/juryinstructions/civil/current/model-civil-jury-instructions-responsivehtml5.zip/index.html#rhtocid=_60&t=Model_Civil_Jury_Instructions%2FCivil_Chapter _119%2FIntentional State of Michigan. (n.d.). Distress. Retrieved from Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions: https://www.courts.michigan.gov/siteassets/rules-instructions-administrative-orders/juryinstructions/civil/current/model-civil-jury-instructions-responsivehtml5.zip/Model_Civil_Jury_Instructions/Civil_Chapter_119/Intentional_Infliction_of_E motional_Dist
