Case Analysis 1. in 1982, XYZ cement company began its plant operation in Pampanga. Local residents were very happy because of the economic benefits they got from the plant especially the 400 local residents employed. After a few years of operation, Local Residents noticed the constant vibration and loud noise coming from the plant. Local residents filed a suit against the company asking the court to issue an injunction to close the plant. The residents claimed that the loud noise and the vibrations posed dangers to their health and damaged their property. The company was using the best available technology in their operation. The court refused to issue the injunction arguing that closing the plant would mean more harm than good to both parties. The court instead ruled that the company should pay the residents a one-time fee to compensate them for the damages done. The amount was computed based on the fair market price residents would receive if they were inclined and able to rent their property. 1. Was the decision of the court fair? Why or why not? 2. If you were the owner of the cement plant, what will you do to solve the problem? 3. Discuss the cost and benefit of the case from the perspective of the principle of utilitarianism.

Principles of Accounting Volume 2

19th Edition

ISBN:9781947172609

Author:OpenStax

Publisher:OpenStax

Chapter13: Sustainability Reporting

Section: Chapter Questions

Problem 6MC: What caused Union Carbides deadly gas leak in Bhopal, India, which killed 3,000 and injured 42,000?...

See similar textbooks

Related questions

Question

Case Analysis 1. in 1982, XYZ cement company began its plant operation in Pampanga. Local residents were very happy because of the economic benefits they got from the plant especially the 400 local residents employed. After a few years of operation, Local Residents noticed the constant vibration and loud noise coming from the plant. Local residents filed a suit against the company asking the court to issue an injunction to close the plant. The residents claimed that the loud noise and the vibrations posed dangers to their health and damaged their property. The company was using the best available technology in their operation. The court refused to issue the injunction arguing that closing the plant would mean more harm than good to both parties. The court instead ruled that the company should pay the residents a one-time fee to compensate them for the damages done. The amount was computed based on the fair market price residents would receive if they were inclined and able to rent their property. 1. Was the decision of the court fair? Why or why not? 2. If you were the owner of the cement plant, what will you do to solve the problem? 3. Discuss the cost and benefit of the case from the perspective of the principle of utilitarianism.

Expert Solution

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

Step by step

Solved in 4 steps

SEE SOLUTION Check out a sample Q&A here

Knowledge Booster

Accounting for Current liabilities, Provisions and Contingencies

Learn more about

Need a deep-dive on the concept behind this application? Look no further. Learn more about this topic, finance and related others by exploring similar questions and additional content below.

Similar questions