MGMT 520 Final Exam

A comprehensive final exam on advanced management concepts.

Isaac Ross
Contributor
5.0
38
7 months ago
Preview (5 of 15 Pages)
100%
Purchase to unlock

Page 1

MGMT 520 Final Exam - Page 1 preview image

Loading page ...

MGMT 520 FINAL EXAM(TCO D) Short Answer Questionand Facts for Page 1 Questions:A well-known pharmaceutical company, Robins & Robins, is working through a public scandal.Three popular medicationsthat they sell over the counter have beendetermined to be taintedwith small particles of plastic explosive.The plastic explosives came from a Robins & Robinssupplier named Casings, Inc.,that supplies the capsule casings for the medication pills. Casings,Inc. also sells shell casings for ammunition. Over $8 million in inventory is impacted. Theinventory is located throughout the Western United States, and it is possible that it has also madeits way into parts of Canada.Last fall, the FDA had promulgated an administrative proposedrulethatwould have requiredallpharmaceutical companiesthat sold over-the-counter medicationsto incorporate a specialtracking bar code (i.e., UPC bars) ontheir packaging to ensure that recalls could be done withvery little trouble.The bar codes cost about 35 cents per package.Robins & Robins lobbied hard against this rule and managed to get it stopped in the publiccomments period. They utilized multiple arguments, including the cost (which would be passedon to consumers). They also raised“privacy” concerns, which theydiscussed simply to getpublic interest groups upset.(One of the drugs impacted is used for assisting with alcoholismtreatmentspecifically for withdrawal symptomsand many alcoholics were afraid their use ofthe drug could be tracked back to them.) Robins& Robins argued that people would beconcerned about purchasing the medication with a tracking mechanism included with thepackaging and managed to get enough public interest groups against the rule. The FDA decidednot to impose the rule.Robins & Robins' contract with Casings, Inc., states, in section 14 B.2.a., "The remedy fordefects in supplies shall be limited to the cost of the parts supplied."Casings, Inc. had negotiatedthat clause into the contract after a lawsuit from a person who was shot by a gun resulted in apartial judgment against Casings for contributory negligence.Robins & Robins sues Casings, Inc., for indemnification from suits by injured victims from themedication, for the cost of the capsule shells, for attorney's fees, and for punitive damages. Listany defenses Casings, Inc., would have under contract theory ONLY. (short answer question)Answer:The contract between Casings, Inc. and Robins & Robins indicated a contractuallimitation that Casing Inc.’s obligation to provide remedies for defects would be limited to thecosts of the parts supplied. Although warranty still applied, the contractual limitation that isstated in the contract would limit the recoveries and damages that can be filed against or claimedfrom Casings, Inc. As such, although Robins & Robins might be able to recover some of thedamages from Casings by reason of contributory damages, Robins & Robins’ major role in thedistribution of the medicines, together with their stand against tracking, would also make themliable for the defective product.2.(TCO B)The FDA decides to require all pharmaceutical companies to immediatelyimplement the tracking bars (UPC)as a result of the disaster with Robins & Robins.Robins &Robins decides not to challenge this and begins the process of adding them to all of theirproducts.However, McFadden, Inc., a New York pharmaceutical company,realizes that this newrequirement is going to bankrupt them immediately. McFadden did not participate in the original

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

Preview Mode

This document has 15 pages. Sign in to access the full document!

Study Now!

XY-Copilot AI
Unlimited Access
Secure Payment
Instant Access
24/7 Support
Document Chat

Document Details

Related Documents

View all