BUSN370 Regent Biblical Principles Legal Ideals & Public Policy Discussion I will need 2 responses to the following 2 discussion board posts. (see attached

BUSN370 Regent Biblical Principles Legal Ideals & Public Policy Discussion I will need 2 responses to the following 2 discussion board posts. (see attached)

Original prompt from the discussion board – Based on the readings from Chapters 12 and 13, there are a host of principles and policies in place to protect parties from others, as well as their own mistakes or ignorance. What are some biblical principles that relate to these legal ideals, such as Public Policy, the Parol Evidence Rule, and the Statute of Frauds? Specifically, which of these biblical principles pertain to business contracts and agreements today? How do the principles compare with the readings from chapters 12 and 13?

Liuzzo, A. L., & Hughes, R. C. (2019). Essentials of Business Law (10th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Education:
Chapters 7, Introduction to Contracts;
Chapters 8, Offer and Acceptance;
Chapters 9, Mutual Agreement;
Chapters 10, Consideration;
Chapters 11, Competent Parties;
Chapters 12, Legal Purpose of Contracts;
Chapters 13, Form of Contracts;
Chapters 14, Operation of Contracts;
Chapters 15, Discharge of Contracts; and
Luke 7:36-50 (Greater Debt) [NEW].

For the 2 responses – In addition, learners post a minimum of two responses to peer initial responses. The peer response should include additional research that expands upon one of key points noted in your peers initial response. The peer reply should be composed in a professional manner with a word count range of 150-350 words each. Post #1 – Clarissa Hodge
According to Liuzzo and Hughes, public policy is unenforceable if justice is obstructed or
perverted, a crime was concealed or one was encouraged to file an unjust lawsuit (2019, p
184). “Courts generally will not enforce contracts that violate public policy and define public
policy to include a broad category of “legislation” that includes statutes, constitutions, local
ordinances, and administrative regulations” (Cooper, 2013, p 275).
The Biblical principal demonstrating public policy in action is “He who is without sin, let
him first cast a stone” (John 8:7, King James Version). Although this is a familiar story, it has
little to do with the woman caught in adultery. The scribes and Pharisees were perverting justice by trying
to entrap Jesus. Their scheme
is fully revealed in John 8:6a “This they said, tempting him, that they might
have to accuse him” (KJV). But he skillfully turned the tables, putting them to shame as they were momentarily
“convicted by their own conscience” (John 8:9, KJV).
This same principal is still applicable today in that
a contract must show no defect and no illegality.
“Courts employ contracting principles when establishing and interpreting plea agreement
terms, explicitly using language, doctrine, and remedies from commercial contracts law to solve
disagreements over the meaning of disputed terms” (Woehr, 2010, p 841). The Statue of Frauds
protects consumers by stating a “contract” must be in writing to be legally enforceable. The
appointment of an executor or administrator authorized to pay debts on behalf of an estate, a
building contract whose construction will take more than a year to complete, a prenuptial
agreement prior to marriage, and the sale of any personal property valued over $500 are
examples of this principal (Liuzzo and Hughes, 2019, p 199-201).
But the most familiar written agreement is a deed for the transfer of real estate from one
party to another party with signatures witnessed by a notary and the document recorded for
public record. Jeremiah 32:10-15 tells the story of Jeremiah’s purchase of a piece of land that
would one day become Israel’s inheritance. The deed was signed, witnessed, included a
consideration, terms and was sealed for future generations. This is very similar to the method
still utilized today.
Works Referenced:
Cooper, Benjamin. P. (2013). Taking Rules Seriously: The Rise of Lawyer Rules as Substantive
Law and the Public Policy Exception in Contract Law. Cardozo Law Review, Volume 35 No 1.
Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.regent.edu:2048/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=917
08606&site=ehost-liveost-live
Liuzzo, Anthony L. and Hughes, Ruth C. (2019). Essentials of Business Law, Tenth
Edition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.
Woehr, Tina. (2010). The Use of Parol Evidence in Interpretation of Plea Agreements. Columbia Law
Review, Volume 110 No 3. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.regent.edu:2048/stable/27806634
Post #2 – William Gott
Contracts within businesses are a common place and often times contracts are amended or
are often times breached by one of the parties. However, there are laws in place for these
instances. The parol evidence rule is one of things that is often brought up.
“There is a rule of substantive law which states that whenever contractual intent is
sought to be ascertained from among several expressions of the parties, an earlier tentative
expression will be rejected in favor of a later expression that is final” (Perillo
1976). According to Shepard, the parol evidence rule comes into play only when the last
expression is in writing. He states the rule as follows: “When two parties have made a
contract and have expressed it in a writing to which they have both assented as the complete
and accurate integration of that contract, evidence, whether parol or otherwise, of
antecedent understandings and negotiations will not be admitted for the purpose of varying
or contradicting the writing.” (Shepard 1954)
This where the biblical principles can come into play. When looking at the parol
rule, and the changing of a contract, if the change is only an oral agreement, then it is up to
both parties to do what is right. The book of Proverbs states, “A false balance is an
abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight” (Proverbs 11:1 NIV). When this
type of change is made, the parties must do as the Lord would do and honor their word,
even though it is not in writing, because according the parol rule it is still a binding
agreement that can be upheld if taken to court.
References
Perillo, J. (n.d.). FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. Retrieved
April 24, 2019, from https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/
Shepherd, Contracts in a Prosperity Year, 6 STAN. L. Rev. 208, 223, 226 (1954).

Purchase answer to see full
attachment