Demonstrates outstanding initiative and intellectual insight. Demonstrates a high level of understanding of the materials covered in class. Shows engagement with other research materials and independent analysis.
Present part of the study is based on an evaluation of the relationship between law and ethics by considering their fundamentals and appropriate case laws in New Zealand. Description will be inclusive of consideration of the case of Shawn and Barbara to outline aspects of law and ethics in the same.
Law consists of rules and regulation that are imposed by social institutions in order to oversee behaviour. There is three main theoretical descriptions of law: first is the utilitarian answer, in which law is considered as a command, engaged by warnings of sanctions, from an autonomous to the individuals having a habit of compliance (Crane & Matten, 2016). Second are natural lawyers, as law represent morality and fixed nature of justice, the law takes place from social impulse as well as reasons. Last but not the least is positivism of law that is conflicting to inherent ideas, real law is totally different from morality and its origin.
Ethics is basically a morality study, though morality consists of rules of conduct stating what individuals can and cannot do in different circumstances. In addition to this, ethics are reasonable and sophisticated analyses which are advantageous or disadvantageous to other individuals. According to Ford & Richardson (2013) ethics are supported by logic and reasons. Since different individuals have different perceptions regarding a situation as long as the same is supported by sensible logic (Ford & Richardson, 2013).
In terms of the relationship between ethics and law, the must thing to consider is that Ethics oblige behaviour but not law and the law widely represents ethics and morals. There are generally four pillars of ethics. First is Autonomy that is to give respect to every right of the patient to autonomy. Second is Beneficence which is the duty to perform well in where possible (Treviño, den Nieuwenboer & Kish-Gephart, 2014). The third is Non-Maleficence which reflects the duty to not to get engaged in misconduct. Forth is Justice that is treating everybody as equal and fair. By this way, the law represents these principles: Autonomy which is consisted of Consent, privacy/seclusion and record access, in Beneficence it includes Negligence Law. Non-Maleficence is inclusive of illegal Law and regulations of Negligence Law. Further, in justice Anti-discrimination is comprised.
According to the introduction of laws, some individuals believe that laws develop from morality, which is considered to be the same standard of ethics. Also, at present, many laws are based on freedom, justice and fairness of idea. This is more related to logic and focuses on reasons (Bond, 2015). Thus, law standards match to the ethical ideas of people to some degree.
Sometimes laws and ethics make decisions similar but sometimes are different to each other, as it is based on situations as long as they are reasonable. An individual can support their actions by considering their own perception to ethics, irrespective of the fact that whether it is supported by law or not.
According to the study of Bednarz (2013), there is an existence of the ethical and lawful relationship. In some examples, laws and ethics extend beyond and what is alleged as unethical is considered as against the law. In remaining situations, they might not go beyond. In some situations, what is alleged as unethical is legal and in other situations illegal is alleged as moral. The behaviour might be considered as ethical to an individual or a group but is not likely to be alleged as ethical to others (Wang & Hsieh, 2013). Further, the complexity of behaviour, laws might likely to be legislated, efficiently describing the position of government and most probably the opinion of majority regarding the behaviour. Consequently, by seeing today’s changing environment of business, one must keep in mind that law and ethics are not essentially alike.
For this aspect case of Finch Motors Ltd v Quin (No 2)  2 NZLR 519 can be considered. This case is considered to be a significant case about the quality of merchantable goods as per the Sale of Goods Act 1908 and the Consumer Guarantees Act, 1993. The court lined that the radiator fault was suppressed. However the car dealership was known about this fault at the time it has been put into a sale (Lawrence & Weber, 2014). The faulty radiator further made the car incompatible for the customers, and they claimed it, as the car was not according to their want, specifically for towing a boat. Therefore by considering the case, the sale of car contravened Section 16(a), and the Quins were allowed to make car returns to the car dealership.
Ethical and legal values are generally related to each other; however ethical obligations on average surpass legal principles (Treviño, den Nieuwenboer & Kish-Gephart, 2014). In some situations, the law commands conduct of ethics. Some examples of this law application or ethical policy are inclusive of federal regulation, ethical codes and employment law. However, mostly law symbolize ethics and legal principles are far from co-extensive (Trevino & Nelson, 2016). For this aspect; the law of negligence can be considered. Negligence or tort law is developed on the principle of ethics which says the individual should not get engaged in actions that can pose harm to their related party. Negligence can also be described as a behaviour that is wrong, as it declined of what a logical individual will do to defend another individual from predictable risks.
Relationship of Law and Ethics
According to Lord Blackburn: individuals who go individually or come up with the property where they know that they might bring collisions with the individuals or others property under the law enforced on them to make use of the property with care and ability to prevent such collisions. In this aspect case of Fletcher v Rylands ( LR 1 Ex 265) supported by the case of Donoghue v Stevenson  AC 532 can be considered which points up the negligence law, placing the basis of defect principle in the order of the Commonwealth. Ms Donoghue (plaintiff) had ginger beer offered by a friend here, who purchased that from a store. The drink was provided in Scotland by Stevenson (Nicol?escu, 2013). When plaintiff had the beer, she noticed decomposed snail in her drink. In this case, Stevenson has ethical as well as legal responsibility to provide appropriate drink to their customers with quality ingredients. The ethical breach with severe consequence had imposed a legal penalty to the defendant in the cited case.
Law does not disallow certain acts that will be widely considered as unethical, and the contrary is true as well. Law also disallows those acts which some individuals or groups consider as ethical. For instance, there is no illegality in betraying a friend’s confidence. However most individuals allege it as unethical (Hoffman, Frederick & Schwartz, 2014). On the other hand, speeding is considered as illegal, as most individuals do not have a moral encounter with surpassing the speed limit. Law is more critical in comparison to simply codifying ethical norms.
In this aspect; Bird v Bicknell  2 NZLR 542 is a case took place in New Zealand and is about the fraud simply being an issue (although an imperative issue) to evaluate if or if not an exclusion clause is applicable or not. In contrary with M E Torbett Ltd v Keirlor Motels Ltd in which it was held that there is no validity of exclusion clause and the party had contravened it. The court held that the exclusion clause was unfair and unreasonable.
By considering the given case scenario; it can be said both parties have a breach of their duty. Barbara doesn’t clarify her actual reason for the purchase of property, on the other hand, Shawn does not indicate that property was contaminated even after clear statement cited by the party that “she already knew that several premises in this locality are contaminated. So grateful that limit property does not allege that these premises are contaminated. She has two kids, so considering this fact I would not ever purchase a contaminated premise. In the given case scenario breach of Barbara is ethical but Shawn is liable for legal breach. It is because; clarifying objective is a moral duty but hiding crucial facts is covered under provisions of breach of Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (McAdams and et al., 2015). However; the entire case was related to clear relationship of law and ethics as parties to the contract has legal obligations to cite the proper facts and breach of the same will only be punishable if it is illegal.
Significant Case: Finch Motors Ltd v Quin
Law is accepted globally, issued document, while ethics is not accepted universally, constant and issued concept as it is conceptual, cultural not present in the actions and understanding of an individual (Wright, 2016). The Certain law cannot comply with morality, as they are not engaged in serious matters such as parking laws, dress codes or any other related matters.
Moral standards in some situation are involved in the law when the majority of people consider that moral standard must be imposed by force of legal institutions. In contrary to this, sometimes laws are condemned and removed when they deliberately contravene the moral standards (Hartman, DesJardins & MacDonald, 2014). Thus, morality has formed and influenced many laws. Most of the ethicists have agreed that each citizen have an ethical obligation to follow laws, unless and until the lay does not have any requirement of unfair behaviour.
In short in most situations, it is considered as unethical to contravene the law. Unfortunately, obligations to obey or follow the law can generate poor conflicts if the law has a requirement of something unethical or immoral according to an individual (Solove & Schwartz, 2014). In such type of situations, an individual would be likely to face disagreement among the obligations of law to obey and the obligation to obey according to their sense of right and wrong.
Undoubtedly, there is an existence of law and ethic relationship, and this relationship is considered as very significant to the management. Managers should determine what is right and what is wrong according to law and also consider their, their employee's belief towards ethics. Most important thing to consider is that companies must first evaluate what behaviour will be accepted by their stakeholders and what not. There was in the news for many days about the misconduct of ethical values that the companies are facing like Nike’ practices towards ethical conduct, as described above.
Further, no firm would like to get forced to protect itself from ethical issues inclusive of wages, working environment or issue or relationships. Managers have a great hand in the legal and ethical behaviour of a company. It is their duty to make sure that their employees covered under Local, Federal and State laws also with the ethical codes and conduct introduced in the company (Treviño, den Nieuwenboer & Kish-Gephart, 2014). The most important thing is that manager should offer positivity to their employees regarding proper conduct and behaviour as per laws and obligations.
Indeed, processes and policies would never be established so as to satisfy each and every one, but the development of ethical codes will offer a proper structure for moral behaviour and will enable consumers to determine company’s type with whom they are engaged in business activities. Further with this information, both employees and customer should make a decision if or if not they are ready and able to obey the rules of these codes also the attached laws that have been enforced. Managers are not able to bind their decisions to the specified laws. They are required to consider the morals of consumers and employees.
Bednarz, T. F. (2013). Ethics in Business. Practical Ethics for Food Professionals: Ethics in Research, Education and the Workplace, 75-91.
Bond, T. (2015). Standards and ethics for counselling in action. Sage.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (2013). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. In Citation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 19-44). Springer Netherlands.
Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J. R., & MacDonald, C. (2014). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity and social responsibility. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hoffman, W. M., Frederick, R. E., & Schwartz, M. S. (Eds.). (2014). Business ethics: Readings and cases in corporate morality. John Wiley & Sons.
Lawrence, A. T., & Weber, J. (2014). Business and society: Stakeholders, ethics, public policy. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
McAdams, T., Neslund, N., Zucker, K. D., & Neslund, K. (2015). Law, business, and society. McGraw-Hill Education.
Nicol?escu, E. (2013). Business ethics, corporate governance, and social responsibility. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics, 1(1), 86-92.
Solove, D. J., & Schwartz, P. (2014). Information privacy law. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2016). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do it right. John Wiley & Sons.
Treviño, L. K., den Nieuwenboer, N. A., & Kish-Gephart, J. J. (2014). (Un) ethical behaviour in organizations. Annual Review of Psychology, 65, 635-660.
Wang, Y. D., & Hsieh, H. H. (2013). Organizational ethical climate, perceived organizational support, and employee silence: A cross-level investigation. Human Relations, 66(6), 783-802.
Weiss, J. W. (2014). Business ethics: A stakeholder and issues management approach. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Wright, R. (2016). 550-1S Business Law and Ethics.