Laws are set in place so that they can be followed by the citizens. As citizens we have a legal responsibility to follow these laws so we stay safe and others around us are also safe. One would think that legal officials would follow these rules too, and would do so not because they are citizen but also because they uphold the standard for the laws in which are set in place. The case where Nestle tried to buy out Hershey’s from Hershey, Pa is simply wrong. Some law that technically did not apply to the case ended the whole suit from Nestle buying out Hershey. How is this fair to Hershey’s? How is it fair to Nesle? It is not fair to either of the companies. I understand that it would have been terrible for the Hershey area and many bad things could have come out of it. That is not my argument. Law makers and judges are in the position they are in to be fair and set the standard. By the judge making a terrible ruling because the town of Hershey would have went under is not fair or legal in my mind to Hershey or Nestle. Perhaps instead of ruling the way the judge did. He could have put an injunction on the deal between the two companies, and tell them that they need to come up with something that would benefit the town of Hershey so that the people who live there would not be out of jobs and that the town would continue to prosper.
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/hershey-pa.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your post. Legal officials completely scammed Herseys and Nestle out of a deal. The mayor finds a rule that is a stretch to apply to the case, yet the judge allows this to happen. That is not right. I understand the city of Hersey, Pa did not want to lose this huge corporation there, but that’s what happens. It would have been bad for the people in the area, but they would still have survived, and they could have forced a clause into the contract saying that Nestle has to keep some of the jobs and do some of the things Hersey did for the community.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking that too. The judges reasoning was that a scholarship would have been lost, if I remember correctly. Couldn't Nestle just have said that they would keep the scholarship going and perhaps make it bigger? It seems like that would have solved that problem and then the parties could have gone about their deal. Yeah it would have been bad for the town of Hershey, but that's capitalism. You don't see government and judges stepping in when WalMarts roll into town, roll back prices, and close down other businesses.
ReplyDelete