INSTUCTOR MANUAL FOR n n
Law for Business 15e Barnes
n n n n
Chapter 1-47 n
CHAPTER 1: LAW AND LEGAL REASONING
n n n n n
LECTUREnOUTLINE
1. Discussn then Twisdalen casen that nopensn thisn chapter.n Itnprovidesnann interestingn vehiclen fornd
iscussingn then functionsn of n law n and n legaln interpretation.
a. Haven yourn studentsn identifyn then variousn functionsn ofn then law nandnthenndiscussn whichn spec
ificn functionsn aren furthered n bynthisn antiretaliationn aspectsn of n then Civiln Rightsn statute.
b. Inn then context nofn legaln interpretation,n then courtn foundnthatn Twisdalen didn seemn ton ben protect
ed n based n onn thenliteraln languagen of n then statute.n However,n it nlooked nbeyond n then plainn meani
ngn ton reject n hisn claim.n Specifically,n then court n believed n thatn interpretingn then law ninnan manner
n that n wouldnprotect nhimn fromn retaliationn would nunderminen thenpurposen ofnthenstatute.nItnisn c
onceivablen that n then court n isn motivated n byn publicn policyn concernsn asn well.
c. What n don yourn studentsnthinknof ncourtsnwhon donlooknat nintent nandnpublicn policy?n Usenthisn a
sn an lead-inn forn an discussionn of n legaln jurisprudence.
2. Questionnstudentsnabout ntheirndefinitionsnof n―law.‖ nMakencertainntheynunderstandnthen i
mportancen of n law n inn alln aspectsn of n ourn lives.
3. Discussn then variousn functionsn that n lawn servesn inn society.nYounmight n donthisn bynhavingnthen s
tudentsn identifyn somen of n them.
a. Discussn then conflictsn that n arisen betweenn andnamongn thenvariousn functionsn ofnlaw.n Fornexam
ple,n theren oftenn arenconflictsnbetweenn thengoalsn of nindividualn freedomnandnachievingn socialn
justice.n Noten then problemsn that n arisen whenn theren isn non clearn consensusn onn what n isn just.
b. Askn then studentsn if ntheyn thinkn that nlawn evern isn ―overused.‖ nTheyn aren likelyn ton citennumero
usn examples.n Forn instance,n thisn might n ben antimen tontalknabout nthen product nliabilityn casesn tha
t n aren regularlyn inn then headlines.n Perhapsn then casen involvingn then womann whonburnedn hersel
f n withn coffeen fromn McDonald’sn would n ben appropriaten here.
1-1
©n McGrawnHilln LLC.n Alln rightsn reserved.n No n reproduction n orn distribution n without n thenpriorn written n consentnof
n McGrawn Hilln LLC.
, c. Haven then studentsndiscussn what nit nmeansn tonhaven thenlawn maintainn order.n Younmight n askn s
tudentsn if n maintainingn ordern meansn maintainingn then statusnquo.n Thisn cann lead nton andiscuss
ionn of n legaln realismn and n viewsn that n law n isn used n byn thosen inn powern ton retainn theirn power.
4. Theren isn an tendencyn fornpeoplen ton thinkn ofnlaw nasn imposingn dutiesn withoutnconsideringn hownit ne
stablishesn and n preservesn rights.n Talkn about n hown ourn systemn triesn tonmatchn rightsnwithncorrespo
ndingn duties.
a. Explainn how n duties,n rights,n and n privilegesn maken upn substantiven law.
b. Explainn that n proceduraln lawn providesn then frameworkn withinn whichn substantiven lawsn aren c
reated n and nenforced.n Pointn outnthatnChaptersn2nand n4noffernanmoren detailed ndiscussionn of n pr
oceduraln law.
5. Askn then studentsn ton thinkn ofn annexamplen of nan dutynimposed n bynsubstantiven law nthatnmight n viola
ten somen moraln orn ethicaln belief.n Thisn might n ben an good n timen tontalkn aboutn then variousn schoolsnofn
legaln jurisprudence.n Haven themn speculaten how n anlegaln positivist n wouldndiffern fromn an legaln soci
ologist n orn naturaln law n theorist n inn handlingn suchn situations.
6. Contrast n criminaln law n withn civiln law.
a. Point n out nthatn societynconsidersn itn muchnworsenton ben convictedn ofn an crimen thann ton ben heldn c
ivillyn liable.n Explainn how,n asn an result,ntheren aren moren exactingn proceduraln safeguardsnton pr
otect n an defendant n inn an criminaln trialn thann inn an civiln trial.
b. Noten then differencen betweenncompensatoryndamagesn andnpunitiven damages.n Discussn then
current n uproarn overn punitiven damagesn and n then Supremen Court’sn attempt n ton reinn themn in.n
Seen Staten Farm n Mutualn Automobilen Insurancen v.n Campbell,n 123n S.Ct.n 1513n(U.S.nSup.nC
t.n 2003)n (establishingn guidepostsn forncalculatingn punitiven damages).n Punitiven damagesn ar
en discussed n furthern inn Chaptern 6.
c. Point n out n that noftenn onencann ben subject n ton sanctionsn undern bothn criminaln and n civiln lawsn
without n violatingn thenproscriptionn against n ―doublen jeopardy.‖ nFindnout nifnthenstudentsn t
hinkn that n punitiven damagesn inn anciviln trial,n coupled n withn finesn inn an criminaln trial,n constit
uten an typen of n doublen jeopardy.
Marinellon v.n Unitedn States
Marinellon wasn charged n withn then crimen of n corruptlyn impedingn then duen administrationn of n then Taxn Co
den aftern hen engaged n inn severaln activitiesn that n underreported n hisn taxablen income.n However,n the
U.S.n Supremen Court n overturnednhisn criminaln convictionn becausen Marinellon wasn unawaren thatnhen wa
sn undern IRSn investigationn at n then timen of n hisn activities.n Citingn then need n ton construen criminal
1-2
©n McGrawnHilln LLC.n Alln rightsn reserved.n No n reproduction n orn distribution n without n thenpriorn written n consentnof
n McGrawn Hilln LLC.
,statutesn narrowly,n then Court n ruled n that n then particularn statute—then Omnibusn Clause—
did n not ncovern alln activitiesn thatn underreported nincome.n Then Court nbelieved n that nthenstatutencoveredna
n narrowern rangen of n activitiesn aimed n directlyn atn thwartingnthenactivitiesn of ninvestigationsn whennthenta
xpayern knew n orn should n haven knownn ann investigationn wasn underway.
Pointsn forn Discussion:n Thisn casen isn placed n inn then text n asn ann examplen of n then generaln rulesn underlyin
gn criminaln law.n Specifically,n an personn generallyncannot n ben convicted n of n an crimen unlessn hen orn shen vi
olatesn an statute.n However,n suchn statutesn must n ben objectivelyn clearn ton an reasonablen person.n Thisn Go
vernment’sn interpretationn of n thisn statutenwasnbelieved n ton grant nthen Government n toonmuchn discretio
nn inn determiningn what n constituted n an crime.
7. Then brief n introductionn ton ourn legaln systemn should n ben an review n forn most n students.
a. Then constitutionaln law n materialn isn moren heavilyndiscussed n inn Chaptern4.n Annargument n cannb
en maden forn it n tonben presentedn immediatelyn followingn thisn chapter.nHowever,nwenbelieven stu
dentsn should n first n review n Chaptern 2’sn discussionn of n then disputen resolutionn system.
b. Talkn about n then rolen of n thencourtsn inndeterminingn thenconstitutionalitynofn legislation.n Dont
heyn believen thisn givesn then courtsn toon muchn power?
c. Explainn then relationshipn betweenn staten lawsn andnfederaln laws.n Maken certainnthenstudentsnun
derstand n thatn statenlawsnmaynnot nviolaten then federaln constitutionn andnmust n benconsistent nwit
hn federaln statutes.
Henryn Scheinn v.n Archern &n Whiten Sales
Then Federaln Arbitrationn Act nprovidesn that npartiesn may,nthroughntheirn powern toncontract,nagreen that n t
heirn disputesn willn ben arbitrated.n Innaddition,n then Act nallowsn thosensamen partiesn tonagreen that n ann arbit
rator,n rathern thann an court,n willn determinen whethern that n arbitrationn clausen appliesn ton anyn particularndi
sputentheynmaynhave.nHowever,nseveralnfederalnappellatencourtsncarved noutnan―whollyn groundless‖ ne
xceptionn ton then latternrulen byn whichn theynallowed ncourtsn tonconcluden that narbitrationn wasn not napprop
riaten whenn then court n believed nthenclaimn of n arbitrabilityn wasn groundless.n Innthisn case,n then U.S.n Supre
men Court,n citingn bothn then statuten and n Supremen Court n precedent,n ruled n that n the
―whollyngroundless‖ nexceptionnwasnimpermissiblenbecausenit ncontradicted nthenstatute.
Pointsn forn Discussion:n Thisn casen isn ann examplen of nthen limitsn onnthen judiciary’sn discretionn undernt
hen commonn law.nItn illustratesn thatn innthen hierarchyn ofn laws,n legislativen lawn isn superiorn ton judge-
n maden law.n It n alson illustratesn then rolen of n precedent n inn interpretingn statutes.
8. Then materialn onn statutoryn interpretationn cann ben extremelyn important n inn layingn then foundationn f
orn how n lawyersn think.n Moren importantly,nit nteachesnstudentsn valuablen criticaln thinkingn skills.n T
aken then studentsnthroughnthenprocessn forn interpretingn statutes.n Younmayn discussn statutoryn inter
pretationn and n legaln jurisprudencen together.n Noten how n positivistsn oftenn haven problems
1-3
©n McGrawnHilln LLC.n Alln rightsn reserved.n No n reproduction n orn distribution n without n thenpriorn written n consentnof
n McGrawn Hilln LLC.
, movingnbeyond nthen―plainnmeaning‖ nof nwordsnwhilennaturalnlawntheoristsnand nlegaln sociologist
sn aren accused n of n ignoringn them.
Bostockn v.n Claytonn County,n Georgia
Employersn argued n that n Civiln RightsnAct’sn prohibitionn against ndiscriminationn based n onn sexndid nnotnp
rotect n employeesn whon weren fired nbecausentheyn weren homosexualn orn transgender.n Then employersn as
serted n that n then law nshould nnot nbenexpandedntonprotectn thesen employeesn becausen then legislatorsn whon
originallyn enacted n then statuten would n not n haven envisioned n it n beingn extended n inn thisn way.n The
U.S.n Supremen Court n disagreed.n It n found n non ambiguityn inn then plainn meaningn of n then statute—
then Court n believed n then statutorynlanguagen clearlynprohibited n suchn discriminationn becausen it n wasn bas
ed n onn sex.
Pointsn forn Discussion:n Explainn hown then court n refused n ton looknbeyond nthen plainn meaningn of nthenstatu
te,n concludingn that n it nwould nben wrongn ton attempt ntongleann then intentn ofneachn legislatorn whon votednfor
n then law.n Discussn whethern thisn opinionn isn trulynlegaln positivist n inn nature.nExploren how nit n might n haven
undertonesn of n legaln sociology.
9. Discussn then concept n of n staren decisis.
a. Noten hown staren decisisn promotesn stability.
Stewartn v.n Justice
Restaurant n ownersn asked n thencourt nton enjoinn enforcement n of n ann executiven ordern requiringn restaura
nt n employeesn and n customersn ton wearnmasks.n Then court n upheld nthenMaskn Mandate,nreasoningn thatnit
n wasn reasonablyn designed n tonprotect nthen healthnofn then publicn fromn then spread n of n then COVID n virus.
Pointsn forn Discussion:n Usen thisn casen ton explainn then processn of n staren decisis.n Noten hown then court,n in
n then absencen of n clearn precedent ndealingn withnCOVID nrestrictions,n looked nforn guidancen ton an smallp
oxn casen decided nbynthenU.S.nSupremen Courtn moren thann100n yearsn ago.n Youn might n alson usen thisn cas
en ton discussn executiven ordersn andntheirn placen inn then hierarchyn of n legaln rules.n Explainn how n executiv
en ordersn mayn not n violaten constitutionaln protections.n Thisn casen isn alson connected ntonChaptern 4nandnit
sn discussionn of n duen process.
a. Noten hown staren decisisn permitsn change.
b. Explainn how nthen rulen against n exn postn facton lawsndoesn notn applynton instancesnwherenthen c
ourt n hasn reinterpretedn an statute.n Discussn hownthisn cann posen problemsn forn peoplen whon re
lied n onn then originaln interpretation.
1-4
©n McGrawnHilln LLC.n Alln rightsn reserved.n No n reproduction n orn distribution n without n thenpriorn written n consentnof
n McGrawn Hilln LLC.
Law for Business 15e Barnes
n n n n
Chapter 1-47 n
CHAPTER 1: LAW AND LEGAL REASONING
n n n n n
LECTUREnOUTLINE
1. Discussn then Twisdalen casen that nopensn thisn chapter.n Itnprovidesnann interestingn vehiclen fornd
iscussingn then functionsn of n law n and n legaln interpretation.
a. Haven yourn studentsn identifyn then variousn functionsn ofn then law nandnthenndiscussn whichn spec
ificn functionsn aren furthered n bynthisn antiretaliationn aspectsn of n then Civiln Rightsn statute.
b. Inn then context nofn legaln interpretation,n then courtn foundnthatn Twisdalen didn seemn ton ben protect
ed n based n onn thenliteraln languagen of n then statute.n However,n it nlooked nbeyond n then plainn meani
ngn ton reject n hisn claim.n Specifically,n then court n believed n thatn interpretingn then law ninnan manner
n that n wouldnprotect nhimn fromn retaliationn would nunderminen thenpurposen ofnthenstatute.nItnisn c
onceivablen that n then court n isn motivated n byn publicn policyn concernsn asn well.
c. What n don yourn studentsnthinknof ncourtsnwhon donlooknat nintent nandnpublicn policy?n Usenthisn a
sn an lead-inn forn an discussionn of n legaln jurisprudence.
2. Questionnstudentsnabout ntheirndefinitionsnof n―law.‖ nMakencertainntheynunderstandnthen i
mportancen of n law n inn alln aspectsn of n ourn lives.
3. Discussn then variousn functionsn that n lawn servesn inn society.nYounmight n donthisn bynhavingnthen s
tudentsn identifyn somen of n them.
a. Discussn then conflictsn that n arisen betweenn andnamongn thenvariousn functionsn ofnlaw.n Fornexam
ple,n theren oftenn arenconflictsnbetweenn thengoalsn of nindividualn freedomnandnachievingn socialn
justice.n Noten then problemsn that n arisen whenn theren isn non clearn consensusn onn what n isn just.
b. Askn then studentsn if ntheyn thinkn that nlawn evern isn ―overused.‖ nTheyn aren likelyn ton citennumero
usn examples.n Forn instance,n thisn might n ben antimen tontalknabout nthen product nliabilityn casesn tha
t n aren regularlyn inn then headlines.n Perhapsn then casen involvingn then womann whonburnedn hersel
f n withn coffeen fromn McDonald’sn would n ben appropriaten here.
1-1
©n McGrawnHilln LLC.n Alln rightsn reserved.n No n reproduction n orn distribution n without n thenpriorn written n consentnof
n McGrawn Hilln LLC.
, c. Haven then studentsndiscussn what nit nmeansn tonhaven thenlawn maintainn order.n Younmight n askn s
tudentsn if n maintainingn ordern meansn maintainingn then statusnquo.n Thisn cann lead nton andiscuss
ionn of n legaln realismn and n viewsn that n law n isn used n byn thosen inn powern ton retainn theirn power.
4. Theren isn an tendencyn fornpeoplen ton thinkn ofnlaw nasn imposingn dutiesn withoutnconsideringn hownit ne
stablishesn and n preservesn rights.n Talkn about n hown ourn systemn triesn tonmatchn rightsnwithncorrespo
ndingn duties.
a. Explainn how n duties,n rights,n and n privilegesn maken upn substantiven law.
b. Explainn that n proceduraln lawn providesn then frameworkn withinn whichn substantiven lawsn aren c
reated n and nenforced.n Pointn outnthatnChaptersn2nand n4noffernanmoren detailed ndiscussionn of n pr
oceduraln law.
5. Askn then studentsn ton thinkn ofn annexamplen of nan dutynimposed n bynsubstantiven law nthatnmight n viola
ten somen moraln orn ethicaln belief.n Thisn might n ben an good n timen tontalkn aboutn then variousn schoolsnofn
legaln jurisprudence.n Haven themn speculaten how n anlegaln positivist n wouldndiffern fromn an legaln soci
ologist n orn naturaln law n theorist n inn handlingn suchn situations.
6. Contrast n criminaln law n withn civiln law.
a. Point n out nthatn societynconsidersn itn muchnworsenton ben convictedn ofn an crimen thann ton ben heldn c
ivillyn liable.n Explainn how,n asn an result,ntheren aren moren exactingn proceduraln safeguardsnton pr
otect n an defendant n inn an criminaln trialn thann inn an civiln trial.
b. Noten then differencen betweenncompensatoryndamagesn andnpunitiven damages.n Discussn then
current n uproarn overn punitiven damagesn and n then Supremen Court’sn attempt n ton reinn themn in.n
Seen Staten Farm n Mutualn Automobilen Insurancen v.n Campbell,n 123n S.Ct.n 1513n(U.S.nSup.nC
t.n 2003)n (establishingn guidepostsn forncalculatingn punitiven damages).n Punitiven damagesn ar
en discussed n furthern inn Chaptern 6.
c. Point n out n that noftenn onencann ben subject n ton sanctionsn undern bothn criminaln and n civiln lawsn
without n violatingn thenproscriptionn against n ―doublen jeopardy.‖ nFindnout nifnthenstudentsn t
hinkn that n punitiven damagesn inn anciviln trial,n coupled n withn finesn inn an criminaln trial,n constit
uten an typen of n doublen jeopardy.
Marinellon v.n Unitedn States
Marinellon wasn charged n withn then crimen of n corruptlyn impedingn then duen administrationn of n then Taxn Co
den aftern hen engaged n inn severaln activitiesn that n underreported n hisn taxablen income.n However,n the
U.S.n Supremen Court n overturnednhisn criminaln convictionn becausen Marinellon wasn unawaren thatnhen wa
sn undern IRSn investigationn at n then timen of n hisn activities.n Citingn then need n ton construen criminal
1-2
©n McGrawnHilln LLC.n Alln rightsn reserved.n No n reproduction n orn distribution n without n thenpriorn written n consentnof
n McGrawn Hilln LLC.
,statutesn narrowly,n then Court n ruled n that n then particularn statute—then Omnibusn Clause—
did n not ncovern alln activitiesn thatn underreported nincome.n Then Court nbelieved n that nthenstatutencoveredna
n narrowern rangen of n activitiesn aimed n directlyn atn thwartingnthenactivitiesn of ninvestigationsn whennthenta
xpayern knew n orn should n haven knownn ann investigationn wasn underway.
Pointsn forn Discussion:n Thisn casen isn placed n inn then text n asn ann examplen of n then generaln rulesn underlyin
gn criminaln law.n Specifically,n an personn generallyncannot n ben convicted n of n an crimen unlessn hen orn shen vi
olatesn an statute.n However,n suchn statutesn must n ben objectivelyn clearn ton an reasonablen person.n Thisn Go
vernment’sn interpretationn of n thisn statutenwasnbelieved n ton grant nthen Government n toonmuchn discretio
nn inn determiningn what n constituted n an crime.
7. Then brief n introductionn ton ourn legaln systemn should n ben an review n forn most n students.
a. Then constitutionaln law n materialn isn moren heavilyndiscussed n inn Chaptern4.n Annargument n cannb
en maden forn it n tonben presentedn immediatelyn followingn thisn chapter.nHowever,nwenbelieven stu
dentsn should n first n review n Chaptern 2’sn discussionn of n then disputen resolutionn system.
b. Talkn about n then rolen of n thencourtsn inndeterminingn thenconstitutionalitynofn legislation.n Dont
heyn believen thisn givesn then courtsn toon muchn power?
c. Explainn then relationshipn betweenn staten lawsn andnfederaln laws.n Maken certainnthenstudentsnun
derstand n thatn statenlawsnmaynnot nviolaten then federaln constitutionn andnmust n benconsistent nwit
hn federaln statutes.
Henryn Scheinn v.n Archern &n Whiten Sales
Then Federaln Arbitrationn Act nprovidesn that npartiesn may,nthroughntheirn powern toncontract,nagreen that n t
heirn disputesn willn ben arbitrated.n Innaddition,n then Act nallowsn thosensamen partiesn tonagreen that n ann arbit
rator,n rathern thann an court,n willn determinen whethern that n arbitrationn clausen appliesn ton anyn particularndi
sputentheynmaynhave.nHowever,nseveralnfederalnappellatencourtsncarved noutnan―whollyn groundless‖ ne
xceptionn ton then latternrulen byn whichn theynallowed ncourtsn tonconcluden that narbitrationn wasn not napprop
riaten whenn then court n believed nthenclaimn of n arbitrabilityn wasn groundless.n Innthisn case,n then U.S.n Supre
men Court,n citingn bothn then statuten and n Supremen Court n precedent,n ruled n that n the
―whollyngroundless‖ nexceptionnwasnimpermissiblenbecausenit ncontradicted nthenstatute.
Pointsn forn Discussion:n Thisn casen isn ann examplen of nthen limitsn onnthen judiciary’sn discretionn undernt
hen commonn law.nItn illustratesn thatn innthen hierarchyn ofn laws,n legislativen lawn isn superiorn ton judge-
n maden law.n It n alson illustratesn then rolen of n precedent n inn interpretingn statutes.
8. Then materialn onn statutoryn interpretationn cann ben extremelyn important n inn layingn then foundationn f
orn how n lawyersn think.n Moren importantly,nit nteachesnstudentsn valuablen criticaln thinkingn skills.n T
aken then studentsnthroughnthenprocessn forn interpretingn statutes.n Younmayn discussn statutoryn inter
pretationn and n legaln jurisprudencen together.n Noten how n positivistsn oftenn haven problems
1-3
©n McGrawnHilln LLC.n Alln rightsn reserved.n No n reproduction n orn distribution n without n thenpriorn written n consentnof
n McGrawn Hilln LLC.
, movingnbeyond nthen―plainnmeaning‖ nof nwordsnwhilennaturalnlawntheoristsnand nlegaln sociologist
sn aren accused n of n ignoringn them.
Bostockn v.n Claytonn County,n Georgia
Employersn argued n that n Civiln RightsnAct’sn prohibitionn against ndiscriminationn based n onn sexndid nnotnp
rotect n employeesn whon weren fired nbecausentheyn weren homosexualn orn transgender.n Then employersn as
serted n that n then law nshould nnot nbenexpandedntonprotectn thesen employeesn becausen then legislatorsn whon
originallyn enacted n then statuten would n not n haven envisioned n it n beingn extended n inn thisn way.n The
U.S.n Supremen Court n disagreed.n It n found n non ambiguityn inn then plainn meaningn of n then statute—
then Court n believed n then statutorynlanguagen clearlynprohibited n suchn discriminationn becausen it n wasn bas
ed n onn sex.
Pointsn forn Discussion:n Explainn hown then court n refused n ton looknbeyond nthen plainn meaningn of nthenstatu
te,n concludingn that n it nwould nben wrongn ton attempt ntongleann then intentn ofneachn legislatorn whon votednfor
n then law.n Discussn whethern thisn opinionn isn trulynlegaln positivist n inn nature.nExploren how nit n might n haven
undertonesn of n legaln sociology.
9. Discussn then concept n of n staren decisis.
a. Noten hown staren decisisn promotesn stability.
Stewartn v.n Justice
Restaurant n ownersn asked n thencourt nton enjoinn enforcement n of n ann executiven ordern requiringn restaura
nt n employeesn and n customersn ton wearnmasks.n Then court n upheld nthenMaskn Mandate,nreasoningn thatnit
n wasn reasonablyn designed n tonprotect nthen healthnofn then publicn fromn then spread n of n then COVID n virus.
Pointsn forn Discussion:n Usen thisn casen ton explainn then processn of n staren decisis.n Noten hown then court,n in
n then absencen of n clearn precedent ndealingn withnCOVID nrestrictions,n looked nforn guidancen ton an smallp
oxn casen decided nbynthenU.S.nSupremen Courtn moren thann100n yearsn ago.n Youn might n alson usen thisn cas
en ton discussn executiven ordersn andntheirn placen inn then hierarchyn of n legaln rules.n Explainn how n executiv
en ordersn mayn not n violaten constitutionaln protections.n Thisn casen isn alson connected ntonChaptern 4nandnit
sn discussionn of n duen process.
a. Noten hown staren decisisn permitsn change.
b. Explainn how nthen rulen against n exn postn facton lawsndoesn notn applynton instancesnwherenthen c
ourt n hasn reinterpretedn an statute.n Discussn hownthisn cann posen problemsn forn peoplen whon re
lied n onn then originaln interpretation.
1-4
©n McGrawnHilln LLC.n Alln rightsn reserved.n No n reproduction n orn distribution n without n thenpriorn written n consentnof
n McGrawn Hilln LLC.
