Operations Management homework help.  

  • Answer: Chapter 7 – Questions 3, 7, 10.
  • Answer: Chapter 8 – Question 5; Brief Case 8.1 (see examples in prior lectures) and answer questions at the end.
  1. A Philip Morris subsidiary, C. A. Tabacalera National, and a B.A.T Industries subsidiary known as C. A. Cigarrera Bigott entered into a contract with La Fundacion del Nino (the Children’s Foundation) of Caracas, Venezuela. The agreement was signed on behalf of the foundation by the foundation’s president, who also was the wife of the then–president of Venezuela. Under the terms of the agreement, these two tobacco firms were to make periodic donations to the Children’s Foundation totaling $12.5 million. In exchange, the two firms would receive price controls on Venezuelan tobacco, elimination of controls on retail cigarette prices in Venezuela, tax deductions for donations, and assurances that the existing tax rates applicable to tobacco companies would not be increased.

Is the donation to the charity a violation of the FCPA? [Lamb v Philip Morris, Inc., 915 F.2d 1024 (6th Cir. 1990; cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1086 (1995))]

  1. Smith & Smith, a U.S. computer firm, contracted to install a computer system for Volkswagen in the company’s headquarters in Berlin, Germany. Smith’s con- tract included the following liability limitation: “We are only liable for loss of data which is due to a deliberate action on our part. We are not responsible for lost profits in any event.” The contract had no provisions on choice of law. A crash in the Smith & Smith system caused a loss of 92 days’ worth of financial data. Volkswagen was required to use its auditors to restructure the database at a substantial cost. Smith & Smith says it did nothing deliberate and, therefore, is not liable. Volkswagen cites German law that mandates protection by sellers against such losses and permits recovery of lost profits. U.S. law would honor the Smith & Smith clause. Which law applies? Why?


  1. Walid Azab Al-Uneizi was an employee of the Ministry of Defense of Kuwait. Liticia Guzel was an employee of the Willard Inter-Continental Hotel in Washington, D.C. One of her duties was restocking minibars in guest rooms. Al-Uneizi approached Miss Guzel outside Rooms 610 and 612 and conferred with her about restocking Room 612. After Miss Guzel fin- ished restocking Room 612, Al-Uneizi assaulted and raped her. After the rape, Al-Uneizi gave her a Kuwaiti flag pin. Miss Guzel has brought suit against both Al-Uneizi and the Kuwaiti government, who seek a dis- missal under the act of state doctrine. Should the case be dismissed against both? [Guzel v State of Kuwait, 818 F. Supp. 6 (1993)]

Chapter 8 Question

  1. The owner of a construction firm in New York City, William Lattarulo, has been charged with manslaughter in the death of one of his workers. Lauro Ortega suffocated when the foundation of a building next to where he was digging at a Lattarulo site collapsed on him. Mr. Ortega’s head was all that was uncovered when the foundation collapsed, but the pressure of the dirt and debris that rendered him immobile constricted his chest and made him unable to breathe. He suffocated as his coworkers tried to dig him out from the debris.

Case 8.1 Questions

  1. What problems did the FDA find in the Acme warehouses, and over what period?
  2. Was Mr. Park warned about the problem? What action did he take?
  3. What standard of liability did the instruction given by the judge impose?


Operations Management homework help