3–3. Consumer Rights. Best Buy, a national electronics retailer,offered a credit card that allowed users to earn “reward points”that could be redeemed for discounts on Best Buy goods. Afterreading a newspaper advertisement for the card, Gary Davis appliedfor, and was given, a credit card. As part of the applicationprocess, he visited a Web page containing Frequently AskedQuestions as well as terms and conditions for the card. He clickedon a button affirming that he understood the terms and conditions.When Davis received his card, it came with seven brochures aboutthe card and the reward point program. As he read the brochures, hediscovered that a $59 annual fee would be charged for the card.Davis went back to the Web pages he had visited and found astatement that the card “may” have an annual fee. Davis sued,claiming that the company did not adequately disclose the fee. Isit unethical for companies to put terms and conditions, especiallyterms that may cost the consumer money, in an electronic documentthat is too long to read on one screen? Why or why not? Assumingthat the Best Buy credit-card materials were legally sufficient,discuss the ethical aspects of businesses strictly following thelanguage of the law as opposed to following the intent of thelaw.
4–1. Standing. Jack and Maggie Turton bought a house inJefferson County, Idaho, located directly across the street from agravel pit. A few years later, the county converted the pit to alandfill. The landfill accepted many kinds of trash that cause harmto the environment, including major appliances, animal carcasses,containers with hazardous content warnings, leaking car batteries,and waste oil. The Turtons complained to the county, but the countydid nothing. The Turtons then filed a lawsuit against the countyalleging violations of federal environmental laws pertaining togroundwater contamination and other pollution. Do the Turtons havestanding to sue? Why or why not?
