Presentation on theme: "Protecting the Environment Extra Exam Review – Thursday 4:00-5:00 CH 498 or posted Quiz Results – go through quiz."— Presentation transcript:
Protecting the Environment Extra Exam Review – Thursday 4:00-5:00 CH 498 or posted Quiz Results – go through quiz
Contract Negotiation Exercise Important Clauses Price/Quantity – How paid (upfront, installments, etc.) – Price drop for larger quantities – $U.S or $MEX – How paid, check, wire, etc.? – Late fees (3%) – VAT – Trial period Price Shipping (FOB)/ROL – Timing – Generally FOB Seller Letter of Credit – Documents list Arbitration – Mexican citizen – us law – In mexico but U-FLOW gets to pick two of three arbitrators and the Clinic has to pay 2/3 of the cost. – Generally US Choice of Language – US Choice of Law – US VAT Tax Clause Force Majeure Consideration Reps and Warranties – Warning labels in Spanish – Individually packaged – 6 month test – Penalty for late payment Intellectual Property Rights
Currency Converter 11/17/14 $150 = MEX$ 2, Break Even $380 = MEX$5,159 Equal to US Price $456= MEX$6, % Premium $338.77=MEX$4,600 – Competitor Price $ = MEX$4,800 – Competitor #2 Price $25,000 = MEX$339,459 – Fixed Costs PriceQuantity $350 - $350, $425 ($410 ave) $3851,500 units (ave price $385) MEX$5,214 ($383)500 units ($383) $ units ($380 ave) $350-$ units plus $ (500 per year) ($371 ave) MEX$5, units 18 months, plus MEX$4,965 (ave = MEX$ 5005 = $348.59) MEX$5,000 ($367)250 ($367) $ units ($365) MEX$5, plus MEX$ 4,800 for each of three years (ave MEX$4,840 = $337) MEX$4,800 ($353)250 plus 650 per year yrs 2-4 ($353) MEX$4,667 ($343)250 – if ok MEX$ 5,067 MEX$4,000($294)250 plus 1,250 in years 2-3 MEX$4,000 ($278)250 plus 1,000 more if satisfied MEX$1,025 ($75)250 (mistake) then MEX$4,354 for 650 per year for 3 years (Ave MEX$3,975 = $267) If Curacion 250 Trial Period Price < 350 If U-Flow 1,000 plus units Price > $370 Price Breakdown
Quantity UFLOW: 500 min – 1,000 or greater better Curacion: 250 trial desired – 500 per year PriceQuantity MEX$5, plus MEX$ 4,800 for each of three years (2,450 total) $ (500 per year) (2,250 total) MEX$4,800 ($353)250 plus 650 per year yrs 2-4 (2,200 total) MEX$1,025 ($75)250 (mistake) then MEX$4,354 for 650 per year for 3 years (2,200 total) $3851,500 units MEX$4,000($294)250 plus 1,250 in years 2-3 (1,450 total) $350-$ units plus (1,450 total) MEX$4,667 ($343)250 – if ok MEX$ 5,067 (1,400 total) MEX$5, units 18 months, plus MEX$4,965 (1,250 total) MEX$4, plus 1,000 more if satisfied (1,250 total) $350 - $350, $425 (1,250) MEX$5,214 ($383)500 units $ units $ units MEX$5,000 ($367)250 Quantity Breakdown
Chapter Objectives 1. Common Law. Identify common law actions available against polluters. 2. Environmental Regulatory Law. Understand general environmental laws and principals – be able to identify key regulations and areas regulated. 3. Superfund. Identify the purpose and functions of Superfund.
Farmtex Case – Nuisance Law Casey Martin Home building – Feedlot business p.576, Q25-3 Moonbay is a home building corporation that develops retirement communities. Farmtex owns a number of feedlots in Sunny Valley. Moonbay purchased 20,000 acres of farmland in Sunny Valley to develop Farmtex continued to expand Eventually only 500 feet separated the two operations. Moonbay found it difficult to sell homes because the odor and flies from the feedlots. Moonbay sued to stop Farmtex from operating its feedlots near the retirement community. Who should win? 500 feet Farmtex Feedlot MoonBay Retirement Community
Common Law Actions Businesses/people responsible for operations that created dirt, smoke, noxious odors, noise, or toxic substances were sometimes held liable under common law theories of: 1. nuisance A common law doctrine under which actions against pollution- causing activities may be brought. An action is permissible only if an individual suffers a harm separate and distinct from that of the general public. 2. or negligence. the harm was a foreseeable result of the firm’s failure to exercise reasonable care (negligence) businesses engaging in ultra hazardous activities are liable for whatever injuries the activities cause, regardless of whether the firms exercise reasonable care
Federal Regulation The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 imposes environmental responsibilities on all federal agencies. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for federal projects. – An EIS must analyze the action’s impact on the environment, its adverse effects and possible alternatives, and its irreversible effects on environmental quality. The Environmental Protection Agency was created in 1970 to coordinate federal environmental programs; it administers most federal environmental policies and statutes. – air pollution, – water pollution, – noise pollution, – toxic chemicals, – and radiation.
Air Pollution Clean Air Act Should it be okay to control air pollution through building taller smokestacks (i.e. to spread the pollutants out over a greater distance)?
Water Related Pollution Clean Water Act of Navigable Waters – Safe for swimming – Protect fish and wildlife – Eliminate discharge Wetlands. Prohibits filling/dredging of wetlands unless permit obtained Drinking Water – 1974 – max level of pollutants 2006 US Supreme Court (5-4 decision) Clean Water Act Divided Opinion. 5 separate opinions covering 100 pages. Cannot Regulate Dry Land that Drains to Wetland. Army Core of Engineers, the lead federal agency in wetland regulation, exceeded its authority when it denied landowners permits to dump rocks and dirt not directly in marsh land but also in areas linked to wetlands only through a series of drainage ditches. Significance. Significant because some thought it would more severely limit scope of wetland regulation
Superfund Toxic Chemicals. Pesticides and herbicides, toxic substances, and hazardous waste are regulated under the authority of The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, regulates the clean-up of hazardous waste-disposal sites. Clean-up of hazardous wastes Joint and several liability (2009 Supreme Court case somewhat limits this – if liability can be apportioned)
Brother Tom Nichols of Franciscan Friars of California. Gift of a mine Copper, Silver, and Gold $2.2 Million cleanup Monks spent $940,000 Superfund Who is potentially liable? What is the logic? Is this fair? Superfund Sites
Violations of Acts Fines. For violations of emission limits under the Clean Air Act, the EPA can assess civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day. – Additional fines of up to $5,000 per day can be assessed for other violations, such as failing to maintain the required records. Imprisonment. Those who knowingly violate the act may be subject to criminal penalties, including fines of up to $1 million and imprisonment for up to two years. Long Prairie Packing Company fined $12,500 in 2007 for not promptly notifying MN Pollution Control about a manure storage problem
Global Environmental Issues Cross-Border Pollution. Global Warming. What is the Answer? Economic Development? 2007 Supreme Court Opinion on Global Warming Supreme Court Ruling. EPA is responsible for providing clean air. Issue. In 1970 Congress passed a law mandating that all known pollutants be to health levels by Yet, in million Americans still breathed polluted air. Problem. Potlatch Example
State and Local Regulation Many states regulate the degree to which the environment may be polluted. City, county, and other local governments control some aspects of the environment.