Friday, November 20, 2009
Hershey PA
We talked in class about Hershey Pennsylvania and how the entire economy is based on the Hershey Chocolate factory. Well at one point Nestle was trying to buy out Hershey's and all the work was set. The Mayor found out that Nestlé’s was going to close the factory once it was bought so he tried to find a law to prevent the deal. They applied some random law on scholarships that prevented this deal from being done. I don't think this is right, because the law does not really apply for this situation. I know that it would hurt the economy of the town and be hard for the people to find a job but it kind of ruins is laws. We can’t have our country making up random laws for different things because nothing will get done. Think about Nestles and all the money that they put into trying to buy Hershey’s and the loss they are going to get from this. Is it fair for them to have to go through this because of some random law that doesn’t really apply? So maybe there should be a law that can apply to this situation but putting a law in that has no bearing in this situation is wrong. Maybe there could be a law put in place to prevent the selling of a company that would devastate the economy of a town. To use a scholarship and charity law for this situation I feel is wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree completely with Brian. I feel like they pulled this random law out of thin air and that it was the only one they could find that they could make up some crazy reason for why it applied. It makes me wonder how many cases have they done this for. It makes it seem ok that people just use whatever random law they want to apply to their case and it will be ok; it defeats the purpose of law I feel like.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Brian. It does seem very wrong for someone to find a random law that can be applied in order to benefit them. The law is put in place to bring justice and this is more like an injustice. Bending the law is not something that should be permitted.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the law used in this case doesn't seem to apply to the case at hand. While I don't have a problem with attorneys finding relevant laws to help their cases, I think the law was used unappropriately this time. However, with a changing society, sometimes it is necessary to create new laws. Maybe that should have been done.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this because if you can use laws that are barely related to the actual case, then there would be a huge hole in the court systems and millions of guilty people would find ways to snake out of going to jail.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Brian in his argument and I was in the critical legal studies group that did this case. The case was an injustice to the Nestle corporation and making up a random law to save a corporation from being bought out is ridiculous. In a capitalist society it is perfectly legal for a corporation to take over another and to hinder that process is ludicrous. This case falls within the critiques of the critical legal studies theorist because it shows that some cases are ruled on political motives. Political motives were obviously in the works here in saving Hershey. In addition, it shows that legal materials and rules are sometimes are irrelevant and it is up to the judge to make decisions using their own views.
ReplyDelete