Solutions Manual For

Solutions Manual For Business Law Today, The Essentials, Text & Summarized Cases 14 th Edition By Roger LeRoy Miller

(All Chapters 1-25, 100% Original Verified, A+ Grade)

All Chapters Arranged Reverse:

25-1

This is The Original Solutions Manual For 14 th Edition, All other Files in The Market are Fake/Old/Wrong Edition. 1 / 4

Solution and Answer Guide: Miller, Business Law Today, The Essentials Text & Summarized Cases, 14e, 9798214045962; Chapter 25: International and Space Law Solution and Answer Guide Miller, Business Law Today, The Essentials Text & Summarized Cases, 14e, 9798214045962; Chapter

25: International and Space Law

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Critical Thinking Questions in Features......................................................................1 Ethical Issue—Value Judgment...............................................................................................................1 Cybersecurity and the Law—Critical Thinking.......................................................................................2 Critical Thinking Questions in Cases...........................................................................3 Case 25.1—Critical Thinking..................................................................................................................3 Case 25.2—Critical Thinking..................................................................................................................3 Case 25.3—Critical Thinking..................................................................................................................4 Chapter Review.............................................................................................................5 Practice and Review................................................................................................................................5 Practice and Review: Debate This...........................................................................................................6 Issue Spotters...........................................................................................................................................6 Business Scenarios and Case Problems...................................................................................................7 Critical Thinking and Writing Assignments...........................................................................................14

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS IN FEATURES

ETHICAL ISSUE—VALUE JUDGMENT

1.Is it appropriate for American trade policy to deemphasize purely economic factors in favor of issues such as climate change and labor rights? Explain your answer.Solution: Traditionally, U.S. trade negotiators have operated under the assumption that free trade benefits American consumers by opening home markets to international competition, increasing the variety of goods available while at the same time lowering those goods’ costs. Free trade is also seen as benefiting sectors of the American economy by allowing domestic companies to sell their products in other countries.To promote free trade, the United States has customarily pushed for tariff reductions. High tariffs are equivalent to added taxes on imports, not only raising prices for American consumers but also insulating inefficient American companies from foreign competition.So, for example, as noted in the text, a goal of KORUS FTA is to eliminate 95 percent of participating countries’ tariffs on industrial and consumer exports. By contrast, negotiations for a more recent trade agreement called the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework for Prosperity (IPEF), also involving the United States and South Korea, make almost no mention of market access. Instead, IPEF prioritizes the connected, clean, and fair economies described in this feature. Each government involved in IPEF negotiations is 1 © 2026 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. 2 / 4

Solution and Answer Guide: Miller, Business Law Today, The Essentials Text & Summarized Cases, 14e, 9798214045962; Chapter 25: International and Space Law asked to promote the right to collective bargaining, a safe and healthy work environment, fair minimum wages, and the elimination of employment discrimination and child labor.Even if you believe that such developments reflect a more ethical version of international trade, you should be aware that the implementation of “value-based” trade poses many challenges. Those nations such as the United States that have tried to incorporate climate-related provisions into trade agreements have struggled to establish protocols that can be applied fairly to all participants. Specifically, certain stakeholders, such as the auto industry, have resisted the idea of global regulatory standards that will raise the costs of production in certain countries without effective mechanisms to ensure compliance in others.

CYBERSECURITY AND THE LAW—CRITICAL THINKING

1.Why is international law better suited for satellite regulation than national law?Solution: Once launched and having entered orbit, a satellite will spend relatively little time directly above the territory of the government or private company that manufactured it. Therefore, a legal regime in which individual countries retained jurisdiction over satellite activity in low earth orbit (an altitude of approximately 1,200 miles where most satellites operate) above their earthly boundaries would be prohibitively complex and contentious. Clearly, the future of satellite law is going to be governed by international law.As has been discussed at length in this chapter, the purpose of international law is the orderly settlement of disputes between nations. Indeed, the U.N.’s Outer Space Treaty does provide a broad framework for international space law. More specifically, as noted in the text, under the Liability Convention any harm caused by a satellite on Earth is the financial responsibility of the country that launched it, regardless of who or what actually caused the damage.It should be noted that, in the context of twenty-first century cybersecurity and widespread computer hacking by malicious third parties, the Liability Convention is somewhat outdated. A more helpful model for such satellite-related disputes can be found in the treaties and established practices that govern international waters. Customarily, the law of the sea holds that damages caused by ships or other vessels are the financial responsibility of the party that controls the vessel, not the party that owns it.

CRITICAL THINKING QUESTIONS IN CASES

CASE 25.1—CRITICAL THINKING

1.What If the Facts Were Different? Suppose France had waited until GME had excavated La Trinité and then demanded the ship’s return to its home country. If this demand led to a lawsuit, would France’s behavior be protected by sovereign immunity? Explain.Solution: Probably yes. In the Global Marine Exploration case, to support its position, France cited a previous ruling involving Greece’s assertion of ownership of an ancient Greek artifact. In that case, Greece’s government learned that an American auction house was planning to sell the Greek artifact in question. Greek officials emailed the auction house, stating that the artifact belonged to Greece under a “patrimony” law that declared Greek artifacts to be Greece’s property, no matter where they were located.The auction house filed suit against Greece, seeking declaratory relief on the disputed issue of ownership.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the commercial activity exception of the FSIA did not apply to Greece’s behavior. Greece’s sending of a letter to the auction house demanding return of the artifact was not taken “in connection with 2 © 2026 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part. 3 / 4

Solution and Answer Guide: Miller, Business Law Today, The Essentials Text & Summarized Cases, 14e, 9798214045962; Chapter 25: International and Space Law any commercial activity.” Rather, it was the act of a government demanding the return of a culturally important item in keeping with its own laws. According to the Second Circuit, “[n]ationalizing property is a distinctly sovereign act.” Here, the appeals court found that France’s activities were not like Greece’s. But, in the alternative set of facts proposed in the question, France’s attempt to nationalize La Trinité would have been comparable to Greece’s behavior regarding the artifact up for auction, and France probably would have been protected by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

2.Ethical. Was justice served by the district court’s initial ruling in France’s favor? Why or why not?Solution: Arguably, the district court’s ruling that France could not be sued by GME because of the doctrine of sovereign immunity was not a fair outcome. Under its agreement with Florida, GME “undertook prolonged and expensive research, survey, reporting, and identification of shipwrecked sites,” with assurances that this salvage activity would be “compensated in line with the value of the discovered sites.” These efforts cost the company millions of dollars and “enormous time and effort.” Furthermore, without GME’s efforts, La Trinité probably would not have been discovered. Under these circumstances, it does seem that GME had conferred a substantial benefit on France with its services related to the shipwreck. It was not, then, unreasonable for the company to feel that it was entitled to compensation for these services.

CASE 25.2—CRITICAL THINKING

1.Economic. How does the Changzhou case illustrate that dumping is an unfair international trade practice?Discuss.Solution: The factual findings and legal conclusions in the Changzhou case underscore the unfairness of dumping as an international trade practice. Dumping is the sale of imported goods at less than fair value.Fair value is the price of the goods in the exporting country. Foreign firms that practice dumping in the United States intend to undersell domestic businesses to obtain an increased share of the domestic market.Dumping is generally subsidized by the government of the foreign exporting country. This makes the practice unfair.In the Changzhou case, Changzhou, a Chinese firm, made crystalline silicon photovoltaic (CSPV) cells and related products that Trina imported into the United States. The U.S. Department of Commerce found that the imports were subsidized by the Chinese government and sold in the United States at less than fair value.The International Trade Commission (ITC) determined that the Chinese imports materially injured the domestic CSPV industry.On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit referred to the ITC’s detailed findings and variety of evidence. The court listed the subject areas that the ITC reviewed. Finally, the court reiterated the ITC’s conclusion that the effect of the “unfairly priced and subsidized subject imports” on the domestic industry was “more than inconsequential, immaterial, or unimportant” and led to the U.S. producers’ loss of market share.

2.What If the Facts Were Different? Suppose that the ITC had not issued detailed findings supported by a variety of evidence, but had only released a statement that the subject imports seemed to have a negative effect on the domestic industry. Would the result have been different? Explain.Solution: Most likely, yes, the result in the Changzhou case would have been different if the ITC had released a conclusory statement that the subject imports seemed to have a negative effect on the domestic industry, without findings and evidence.3 © 2026 Cengage Learning, Inc. All Rights Reserved. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part.

• / 4