State court would be highly appropriate since contract disputes will be brought before the state courts of Florida. The state court provides personal jurisdiction over the parties involved in the contract. The constitution requires that both parties should have predetermined minimum contracts within the forum of the court.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) refers to approaches of solving dispute out of court. The approach involves early case assessment, negotiations, reconciliation, mediation and intercession. ADR has become a rapidly increasing trend because of increased court cases, long case queues as well as increased costs of litigation, as well as long delays in solving court cases. Most states have therefore introduced arbitration and mediation as the main ADR programs in which parties will engage either voluntarily or mandatorily. In arbitration, third parties(usually the arbitrator)submits the dispute and thereafter tries to resolve the said dispute after listening to the presentations of both parties (Bowman, Van Calster, & Friedrichs, 2010).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The presentations may take the form of court documents that are submitted to the arbitrator as well as oral arguments by each party. In some instances, the oral argument may be conducted by attorney and may include some witness testimonies. Arbitration provides a relatively faster approach of arriving at decisions that both parties agree to and have confidence in. Moreover, Arbitration has costs are significantly lower than costs of court cases (in terms of hiring an arbitrator a preparing the cases). Arbitration provides effective resolution for confidential and private disputes. Lastly, arbitration remains to be binding with limited opportunity for appeals. Unfortunately, arbitration experiences severe limitations in that the decision made by the arbitrator is final and legally binding where both parties have no chance to appeal even if the decision made is erroneous (Bowman, Van Calster, & Friedrichs, 2010).
Secondly, Arbitration is a complicated procedure and in most cases, the amount of money paid to the arbitrator may make the process uneconomical to other parties. The arbitrator may make biased decisions that are made based on information in which the jury/ presiding judge may disregard in the trial. Arbitration also does not provide an opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses’ testimonies. Arbitration also limits discovery of essential information that may result to erroneous decisions. Additionally, the standards used in the arbitration process may not be explicitly based on the rule of law. Instead the decisions may be influenced the arbitrator’s consideration of “apparent fairness” as presented by the parties (Bowman, Van Calster, & Friedrichs, 2010).
Mediation is an alternative form of ARD where the mediators (individuals heading the negotiations) bring the involved parties together and try to create a point of agreement between the parties (Androphy, Paxton & Byers, 1997). Unlike Arbitration, mediation does not follow a pre-determined procedure. Therefore, the result of the mediation process has no assured outcome. Moreover, mediation does not compel the parties to agree unless they agree by themselves. Mediation is a relatively cheaper and faster way of dispute resolution as compared to court case. Additionally, mediation is a simpler approach of solving dispute that allows greater flexibility of solution in which both parties agree upon the settlement. Unfortunately, mediation may fail to result in settlement agreement. Moreover, it lacks the constitutional protections that are assured by the courts and does not set legal precedence. Lastly, mediation also does not encourage discovery (Bowman, Van Calster, & Friedrichs, 2010).
Arbitration seems to be the most viable solutions to both parties since it provides a confidential approach to the problem that limit negative publicity on the new. Moreover, the two parties will benefit by having fast resolutions to their problem as well as guarantee feasible results.
Chris, Matt, and Ian, can face criminal liability under the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). The law prohibits the manufacture of products intended for therapeutic use (such as the lotion) that wrongly affects the individuals face (under FD&C Act, 201).
Novelty Now Inc. are criminally liable for adulteration of the original lotion in which PYR (a low-cost chemical emulsifier) for the compound is included Novelty Now’s original formula (under 721 of the FD&C Act) as well as marketing unapproved drug (Bowman, Van Calster, & Friedrichs, 2010).
Chris, Matt, and Ian owes a duty to its customers in production of high quality products just like any other manufacturing firm. To this effect, the producers must conduct several test to determine the effects of the adulterated products on consumers and determine if the product is beneficial or not. Unfortunately, Chris criminal liability resulted to adverse effect on the consumer’s health. Chris has strict liability for his action. Novelty Now Inc., Matt and Ian have vicarious liability over Chris’ action given that the three initiated the business together.
Adulteration of the lotion violates the principle of production of natural cosmetics that uses harmless organic substances that beautifies the skin instead, the adulterated lotions resulted to damage of skin. Moreover, adulteration of the lotion violates the economic ethics whereby the manufactures are primarily focused on profits without consideration of consumer’s health. Thirdly, the marketing strategy for the lotion violates legal ethics since the marketing company is easily influenced by Chris to adulterate the original lotion without reporting to the relevant authority (Bowman, Van Calster, & Friedrichs, 2010).
References
Androphy, J. M., Paxton, R. G., & Byers, K. A. (1997). General Corporate Criminal Liability. Texas Bar Journal , 60 (2).
Bowman, D. M., Van Calster, G., & Friedrichs, S. (2010). Nanomaterials and regulation of cosmetics. Nature nanotechnology , 5 (2), 92-92.
