BUSINESS LAW 1. Form an opinion about the contemporary

BUSINESS LAW1. Form an opinion about the contemporary relevance of this ruling. Given the widespread and significant changes in U.S. society and the world over the past 150 years, what is the justification for consideration of such an old case? How does this type of process aid our legal system? How might it detract from the reasonableness of modern deliberations?
2. Consider the actions of Fox, both leading up to and through the course of the legal dispute. From an ethical standpoint, which stakeholders was Fox considering? What values was he attempting to uphold?
LAWRENCE v Fox CASE 13-3 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK FACTS: In November 1857, Holly at the requent For person of ben- iuunnlhim $300. Before makes a promise to another for the purpose an Fu that Holly owed loaning the money, Hollyinfomed efiting a third party. that person may “maintain in Lawrence due the next day. ion upon it” Although many of the preceding cases evuidenation the loan at the time ofthe loan, Rxagreed which this principle was applied were trust cases, nothing ray Lawrence for Holly the nern day Fat did no about the law requires the case to be a trust case. Fox’s Lawrence sued him Fox sowght ro dismiss charges duty to pay Lawrence in retum for the loan he received imawe here was no proof ng no show that Holly was Erom Holly was a clear condition of the loan. The spoken ind Mel to Lawrence, Fox’s agreement with Holly to pay promise is equal to a written promise in this case. There- la mmre war void for want of consideration, and there fore, Lawrence should receive payment from Fox in the priviry benveen Lawrence and Fox. For motion so interest of justice, even if the law d be more narrowly domin was denied. The jury altimately found in favvir of interpreted, Laherence for the salm of the loan plus interest uppealed DECISION AND REMEDY: The decision of the earlier the judgment wur affirmed. Fox then appealed again court was affirmed Fox was required to pay Lawrence as ISSUE: Does Lawrence have the right to sue Fox. the he bad pronaised Holly. promisor, for payment? SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CASE: This case was one of REASONING: There is a principle of law, found in Eng- the earliest eases that upheld the rights of third parties to lish law as well as in the law of many states, that if one sue promisors to have agreements enforced. CRITICAL THINKING Form an contemporary relevance of this ruling. Given the widespread amd opinion about the society and the world over the past 150 years, what is the extremely significant of process aid our legal consideration of such an old case? How does this type ystem? How might it detract from the reasonableness of modem deliberations? ETHICAL DECIsiON MAKING Consider the actions of Fox, both leading up to and through the course of the legal dispuse From an ehial stakeholders was Fox What values was he atempting upbold sandpoint, which