Burnett vs. National Enquirer, Cattle & Flies and Retirees
Does Pepsi Stuff Include Harrier Jet?
Submitted to:
Professor Paul Floyd
Bethel Cohort: MBP2015
Submitted By:
Glenice Booker-Butler
6/16/2015

Busn 656 – Wk 3 Case: Burnett vs. National Enquirer Glenice Booker-Butler
1.
What facts establish malice in the case?
Ms. Burnett was civilly, wronged with a twisted recant of what actually happened and went on at the restaurant where she was dining. An intentional libel Tort was created by a written dramatize defamation of what occurred. Once The National Enquirer published and printed the article, malice became evident first because Carol Burnett was a public figure and the defamation involves and affects both her personal and professional life based on the guaranteed constitutional liberties/freedoms and the privacy, right of laws.
California law states that punitive damages are awarded only if an item is published with actual malice. The intentional wrongful act, absent justification, with the intent to cause harm to others; conscious violation of the law that injures another individual; a mental state indicating a disposition in disregard of social duty and a tendency toward malfeasance.
Why was it necessary to establish malice?
Actual malice in United States law is a condition required to establish libel against public officials or public figures and is defined as knowledge that the information was false or that it was published without actually knowing whether it was true or false. It is a necessary requirement for a public figure to win a lawsuit for defamation.
Malice can be defined in many ways, but as a standard rule is with competent evidence, direct or circumstantial threats, defamations, rivalry, ill-will, and hostility arising between the parties. The legal application, malice is comprehensive and applies to any legal act that is committed intentionally without Just Cause or excuse.
Based the context of the First Amendment, public officials and public figures must satisfy a standard that proves actual malice in order to recover for libel or slander (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2)
2.What benefits do publications gain through stories such as the Burnett/Kissinger one?
Increase in sales with large bold and brightly colored headlines. Due to the notoriety of both
Ms. Burnett and Mr. Kissinger possible picture splash across the front page fueled with sensationalizing and intriguing gossip, which drives curiosity. Although, many charity organizations benefit from the use of famous people for promoting positive causes.

2.
Should tabloids like the National Enquirer enjoy the protection of the privilege?
The media enjoy rights of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, based on the decision The National Enquirer was not a newspaper and could not claim the retraction privilege. The standard of malice was utilized and the evidence clearly established that the article was published with knowledge that part of it was not true.
Personally, I feel they should not receive the privilege when knowingly you do something that you can validate or verified.
Are tabloids different from newspapers?
Yes, I think newspapers/broadsheets have more in-depth coverage of a news story, with longer articles with different viewpoints.
Tabloids are smaller with short slangy articles with less important short stories. I think they sensationalize gossip and draws your attention to them with big bright headlines.
REFERENCES
Jennings M.M., (2010) Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business South-Western Cengage
Learning (Ohio)
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6thEdition, West Publishing (Minnesota)
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc.
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/communications/burnett.html

Busn656 Week 3 Case: Cattle & Flies & Retirees Glenice Booker-Butler
1.
Did Spur create a nuisance?
Yes, according to Jennings, landowners enjoyed protection of the courts to prevent bad smells, noise, and emissions, which falls under the environmental law remedies within
Common Law.
I believe this case represents both private and public nuisances, with a civil wrong creating a situation that interferes with others enjoyment of their properties, which has caused an adverse effect on the growth and development of the community. Private nuisance affects a single individual in the enjoyment of private rights not common to the public.
Public nuisance affects the rights of citizens as a part of the public, that affect a significant number of people or a community.
Based on the National Environment Policy Act, dated 1969 Section 36-601 refers to public nuisance dangers to public health: “A condition or place in a populous area which constitutes a breeding place for flies, rodents, mosquitos and other insects which are capable of carrying and transmitting disease-causing organisms to any person or persons.
2.
Should it make any difference that Spur was there first?
Because the law of nuisance is elastic which means the rule cannot always be the same in all instances, even though Spur industries was there first doesn’t really matter. Del Webb provided supporting evidence and testimony therefore, the court allow the use of the Health
Act.
What is really, strange is the fact that when Webb purchased the property the feedlots were already up and running and had been for generations, although at a lesser volume. It seems that there should have been some agreements and or stipulations made on both parts, such as a limit of the size herd Spur could graze along with how close Webb could build in any direction of the feedlots.
I don’t really get it that Webb, knew he was buying into an agricultural area and yet made the claim that the feedlots where affecting his operation. When the court state that a residential landowner may not have relief if he knowingly came into a neighborhood reserved for industrial or agricultural endeavors, so how could he claim damages on what is unforeseen as
Spur increased their development, which I call business in order to maintain and stay competitive you have to have growth.

3. How does the court balance retirement communities and beef production being two of
Arizona’s biggest industries?
Allowing Webb’s use of indemnity and securing an injunction with enjoinment with equitable power. It was a win-win for Webb, Spur Industries would be gone, with a good possibility of selling the other 1300 lots and continue building a growing community. Economically as we have seen that people today are moving and trading off the city and urban lifestyles for suburban living, which could mean the possibility of not just dealing with senior retirement but could entice and appeal to young families.
REFERENCES
Jennings M.M., (2010) Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business - South-Western
Cengage Learning (Ohio)
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6thEdition, West Publishing (Minnesota)

Busn656 Week 3 Case: Does Pepsi Stuff Include a Harrier Jet? Glenice Booker-Butler
1.
When does the court think an offer was made?
A contract is a promise to fulfill or a restatement of a promise or set of promises for breach with a remedy or performance of law viewed as a duty. There are two (2) types of contracts; bilateral when both parties agree to perform certain things and unilateral where one party issues a promise and the other performs.
In general, the court does not consider a TV advertisement as a contract but rather an invitation to offer, a form of mass communication. I think the Pepsi case would be considered an unilateral contract, where Leonard watched a TV commercial relied on the offer and promises made by Pepsi statement “Drink Pepsi – Get Stuff,” Leonard assumed an implied-infact contract.
According, to Jennings an offer is the first step, of a contract and in this case it was not accepted, no consideration was made, yet ending with a need for defense, which I believe led to the intent-to-contract where the court uses a standardized objective to determine the intent of the parties. Taking into consideration how a reasonable person(s) perceives the language, circumstances and actions surrounding the situations of the parties as to whether or not a contract was in-fact formed.
2.
Why is whether the ad is funny an important issue?
Leonard insisted that the commercial was for real and he seriously wanted the Jet, although it was not in the catalog it appeared on the actual commercial with the required amount of points necessary. The communication of an offer, must be conveyed and approved by the offeree before it is valid. Because the court relies on reasonability or a normal belief, noting that a reasonable person would not believe that Pepsi would be giving a Harrier Fighter Jet, just for drinking Pepsi. I think the Harrier Fighter Jet was the eye-catcher much like bold bright headlines that draw you to the proposed.
3.
Will Mr. Leonard get his Harrier Jet?
Absolutely, not It was only a ploy, what school ground would be suitable for jet landings, I believe it is a case if it does not make sense than something is really wrong. Maybe because
Leonard was a teenager, he actually was naive enough to believe that a military fighter was

would only cost $7,000,000 but, in reality he was resourceful in his thinking on how and what he had to do to win.
Why or Why not?
Nothing beats a failure but a try. Pepsi never complied with an offer, and the jet was never mentioned in the initial catalog offerings.
REFERENCES
Jennings M.M., (2010) Foundations of the Legal Environment of Business - South-Western
Cengage Learning (Ohio)
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6thEdition, West Publishing (Minnesota)
88 F.Supp.2d 116 (1999) John D.R. LEONARD, Plaintiff, v. PEPSICO, INC., Defendant.
Nos. 96 Civ. 5320(KMW), 96 Civ. 9069(KMW). United States District Court, S.D. New York.
August 5, 1999.