HOOPER V. YODER

September 9, 2015

The purpose of this paper is to analyze and evaluate a civil court case between Steven J. Hooper v. David Yoder and the role ethical principles played in the case. I would like to address these important points in this paper: * Define common law * Summary of the facts that brought the parties into the courtroom * State the holding of the court * The legal rights and responsibilities of the plaintiff and defendant * The role of ethical theories including Kant and Nozick’s in this case * Propose specific, common sense business practices that may have resolved the conflict
Let’s begin with a definition of common law which is applied to all corporations. “Common law is made and applied by judges as they decide cases not governed by statutes or other types of law. Although common law exists only at the state level, both state courts and federal courts become involved in applying it. … Over time, judges began to follow the decisions of other judges in similar cases, called precedents. This practice became formalized in the doctrine of stare decisis” (Mallor, et all, 2010).
There were several facts that brought the parties into the courtroom. The litigation began with the conflict between Hooper and Yoder who both started their business in the dairy products field as partners. Surprisingly, there was no formal written agreement for the partnership form of business between them. They created, accepted the rights and shared the duties, assumed business and financial risks, and shared the work load and the profits equally. They both worked hard to build the business. After discussing with lawyers in both Colorado and California, Hooper and Yoder decided to incorporate their business and named it Beautiful Daydreams, Inc. Hooper was named president and treasurer while Yoder became vice-president and secretary.