Protecting Protecting the Environmentthe 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$150 = MEX$ 2,036.75 Break Even$380 = MEX$5,159 Equal to US Price$456= MEX$6,191.73 20% Premium $338.77=MEX$4,600 – Competitor Price$353.50 = MEX$4,800 – Competitor #2 Price$25,000 = MEX$339,459 – Fixed Costs

Price Quantity

$350 - $425 250 @ $350, 1,000 @ $425 ($410 ave)

$385 1,500 units (ave price $385)

MEX$5,214 ($383) 500 units ($383)

$380 500 units ($380 ave)

$350-$380 250 units plus 1,200 @$380

$375-$370 750 @ $375 1,500 @ 370 (500 per year) ($371 ave)

MEX$5,032 750 units 18 months, plus 500 @ MEX$4,965 (ave = MEX$ 5005 = $348.59)

MEX$5,000 ($367) 250 ($367)

$365 500 units ($365)

MEX$5,000 500 plus 650 @ MEX$ 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 ($343) 250 – if ok 1,200 @ MEX$ 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

QuantityUFLOW: 500 min – 1,000 or greater

betterCuracion: 250 trial desired – 500 per

year

Price Quantity

MEX$5,000 500 plus 650 @ MEX$ 4,800 for each of three years (2,450 total)

$375-$370 750 @ $375 1,500 @ 370 (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)

$385 1,500 units

MEX$4,000($294) 250 plus 1,250 in years 2-3 (1,450 total)

$350-$380 250 units plus 1,200 @$380 (1,450 total)

MEX$4,667 ($343) 250 – if ok 1,200 @ MEX$ 5,067 (1,400 total)

MEX$5,032 750 units 18 months, plus 500 @ MEX$4,965 (1,250 total)

MEX$4,000 250 plus 1,000 more if satisfied (1,250 total)

$350 - $425 250 @ $350, 1,000 @ $425 (1,250)

MEX$5,214 ($383) 500 units

$380 500 units

$365 500 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 1972. 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

SuperfundWho 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 1977. Yet, in 1987 100 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.