CHAPTER 01 INTERACTIVE 2 THE PROCESS OF CRITICAL THINKING AND LEGAL REASONING DECISION MAKING

Student’s Name
Course
Tutor’s Name
Date
Legal Decision on RelaxEze Advertisement Case
Abstract
The business law case is on RelaxEze. The company is a hypothetical pharmaceutical drug firm that creates drugs for childhood cancer. The firm has advertised the drug using the statement that declares that the drug works better than any other drug that has ever been sold before in the United States. Through the process of critical thinking, the focus of this analysis is to make a legal decision that shows whether RelaxEze’s advertisement is permitted. The rule of law that relates to this situation is the “reasonable consumer standard.” Besides, one of the key issues, in this case, is that “is it practical to expect that only parents of children with symptoms of cancer would be listening or viewing that the advertisement?” It can be said that if the company advertised to the parents of children with symptoms of cancer only, it could focus on the probability that the audience would recognize that the advertisement is about the drugs for children with cancer only. The analysis concludes that the advertisement is not permitted and needs to be revisited.

Legal Decision-Making on the Case
The facts are that RelaxEze, which is a hypothetical pharmaceutical drug firm, produces drugs for childhood cancer. The discovered drug has been approved by the Federal Food and Drug Administration and its sale to the public. RelaxEze advertises the drug using the statement, “This drug works like no other drug that has ever been sold in the United States.

” The legal issue is to determine whether this advertisement statement is allowed with regards to the Lopez v. DrugsRus decision. The goal is to advise RelaxEze on whether this advertisement is permitted and is in agreement with the new legal procedures in the business environment.
The rule of law that applies, in this case, is the “reasonable consumer standard” (Allen and Kraakman 17). One key issue that needs to be considered with regards to this standard is that “is it practical to expect that just parents of children with cancer would be attending to the advertisement?” Another issue is that “does RelaxEze possess any information or data that could be utilized to show that even average drug users or consumers would observe that this advertisement is merely common business overstatement?” The legal decision should be based on the “intended consumer standard.”
If RelaxEze advertised only to the parents of the children with cancer, the company could emphasize on the chance that the group’s member would comprehend that the advertisement states the drugs for children’s cancer symptoms only (Allen and Kraakman 19). Nonetheless, the generalized advertising would yield a greatly more challenging defense of the advertisement form they visualized as the “intended reasonable consumer standard” would now swing to the average consumer’s ability to realize the intended function of the drug (Allen and Kraakman 20). Therefore, this type of advertisement is not permitted because it is generalized and has not focused on the parents of children with symptoms of cancer. RelaxEze should rethink its advertisement by ensuring that the statement is focused on the intended consumer standard and reflect the intended function of the drug.

Works Cited
Allen, William T., and Reinier Kraakman. Commentaries and cases on the law of business organization. Wolters Kluwer law & business, 2016.