law Archives - Page 20 of 24 - understand-culture

Who wants to admit?

When persuading Americans do not feel obligated to offer full and comprehensive information about the weaknesses of their proposal, concept, product or solution.

Instead, the obligation is with the buyer (the audience) to expose the weaknesses through critical questions. If asked, competent, professional and honest Americans will respond forthrightly.

This is a shared logic among Americans. Listeners know to ask the critical questions. Speakers know to anticipate those questions. If the critical questions are not asked, if the listener then accepts (buys), only later to discover negative aspects, the listener (buyer) will not blame the speaker (seller), but himself.

Besides, who wants to admit to their colleagues or boss, to their spouse or friends, that they made a poor decision?

Protections

“Today, caveat emptor does not apply to as many situations as it once did. Due to the changing marketplace, government regulations were created to protect consumers’ interests. With the release of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)—a set of business laws that regulate financial transactions that occur across states—for example, warranty provisions are much more common. Additionally, some industries now require seller disclosures.”

obligation to inform

The Germans have a legal term called Auskunftspflicht. Auskunft means information. Pflicht means obligation. Auskunftspflicht: the obligation to inform. When Germans persuade, convince, present, sell, the consciously Germans present the full picture: what works and what doesn’t work. Anything less is unprofessional, dishonest, and most certainly not persuasive.

caveat emptor

The Americans have a Latin term caveat emptor. It means “Let the buyer beware.” When persuading, presenting, convincing, selling Americans present the positive picture: what works. Americans do not feel obligated to present or to reveal what doesn’t work, what is negative. In the U.S. business culture the audience is obligated to expose what doesn’t work by asking critical questions. Persuasive is selling what works, and not what doesn’t work.

Litigation

Given their litigation-heavy culture, it may seem ironic that Americans are so quick to say yes to an agreement. After all, saying yes and then not following through should make it easier for the one party to file a lawsuit.

However, the reality is the opposite. By having a culturally soft yes Americans make it more difficult for others to successfully sue them. In the U.S. it takes far more than a simple yes to indicate an oral agreement, which offers Americans protection from legal claims.

Gianni vs. Russell Supreme Court of Pennsylvania 1924 – Gianni, who owned a small store, claimed that his landlord told him that he could have the exclusive right to sell drinks in the building.

The landlord then rented another space in the building to a company that sold drinks, and Gianni attempted to sue. However, because Gianni had entered into a written lease, and there was no mention of this right in the lease, the oral contract was said to be nonexistent.

Power Entertainment Inc. v. National Football League Properties, Inc., United States Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit, 1998 – the plaintiff and defendant orally agreed that Power Entertainment would take over a licensing agreement between the NFL Properties and another company in exchange for Power Entertainment assuming the $800,000 debt between the two original companies. However, after the debt was paid, NFL Properties did not transfer the license, and the oral contract was found to be invalid.

Additionally, oral agreements in the US are sometimes called handshake deals. Although an actual handshake isn’t necessary to make the agreement binding, this still shows that it takes more than a ‘yes’ to enter into an agreement.

Legal Case Method

The case method utilized in business schools is also used in American law schools. It relies on the principle that the most effective way to learn American law is to scrutinize judicial opinions which have become the law.

Law school cases allow students to discern a legal rule, prompting students to test their knowledge in simulated situations. This sensitivity towards facts and reliance on previous judicial rulings is deeply imbedded in the legal system in the United States.

Wrongful termination

The Human Resources departments in American companies – especially large ones – have become very careful in how they handle employee performance appraisals. Not only because they strive to develop their talent, but also in order to avoid lawsuits. Even well-designed appraisals can lead to a lawsuit if they are poorly implemented or applied in an inconsistent manner.

Because U.S. labor courts continue to make exceptions to the once solid At-Will doctrine, employers face greater requirements to prove legitimate business reasons for many personnel actions.

At-Will employment is a term used in American labor law for contractual relationships in which an employee can be dismissed by an employer for any reason and without warning.The rule is justified by its proponents on the basis that an employee may be similarly entitled to leave his or her job without reason or warning.

At-Will employment gradually became the default rule under the common law of the employment contract in most states during the late 19th century. Over the 20th century many states modified the rule by adding an increasing number of exceptions, or by changing the default expectations in the employment contract altogether.

“Whistleblowing”

Even if an American loses a conflict within a company, after having escalated it once or twice, if he/she strongly believes to be in the right, it is not uncommon for that American to seek an even higher authority – the public at large. When that happens, the person who exposes the conflict is called a “whistleblower.”

Edward Snowden was working for the NSA when he publicly accused them of spying. Snowden said that the reason why he decided to make his accusations public was that he “can’t in good conscience allow the U.S. government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they’re secretly building.”

In 2014, former State Department official John Tye wrote an editorial in The Washington Post in which he discussed his concerns about his department.

Thomas Drake was an executive in the NSA (National Security Agency) when he began to disagree with the agency’s policies. After several attempts to address his concerns internally, Drake decided to make his complaints public and turned to reporter Siobhan Gorman in 2006.

6th Amendment

The Bill of Rights are first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution which guaranty personal freedoms and limit governmental powers. The Sixth Amendment states:

„In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.“

The following part of the Sixth Amendment is named the confrontation clause: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”

The Confrontation Clause has its roots in both English Common Law, protecting the right of cross-examination, and Roman Law, which guaranteed persons accused of a crime the right to look their accusers in the eye.

According to the Bible, Acts 25:16, the Roman Governor Festus, discussing the proper treatment of his prisoner, Paul, stated: “It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man up to die before the accused has met his accusers face-to-face, and has been given a chance to defend himself against the charges.“

6th Amendment, again

The Sixth Amendment states: „In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, ….“

For Americans, whether in the legal system or in the workplace, the right to a hearing is fundamental. The hearing allows for the parties in conflict to make their arguments and counter-arguments. It is the beginning of the formal process of conflict resolution. Americans expect the team lead to call a hearing quickly.

In a fair hearing the conflict parties have the opportunity to present evidence – including witnesses – and to discover what evidence is brought against them. The hearing also allows for questioning (cross-examination) of the opposing party‘s witnesses. A hearing is only fair if it is administered by an impartial third party.

In the American business context the manager, as judge, may resolve the conflict based on those arguments and counter-arguments, or use the hearing as a basis for further investigation into the reasons for the conflict.

Because American managers are responsible for the results their teams produce, they focus on maintaining internal team cohesion. Conflict of any kind threatens cohesion. After having learned of an internal conflict, American managers are inclined to call the conflict parties together at very short notice. That first hearing is direct, informal and personal. The manager wants to „get to the bottom of the problem.“