CONCEPTUAL LENS SHIFT: FOUR REFRAMED BUSINESS LAW CASES

By: Roger W. Reinsch’ and Amy B. Hietapelto”

“All there is t o thinking, is seeing something noticeable which makes you see something you weren’t noticing which makes you see something that isn’t even visible.”’

I. INTRODUCTION

Trying to facilitate undergraduate business students’ understanding of “the law” is a difficult task. Most lay persons have limited, if any, prior exposure to and understanding of how the law works in our society. This is especially true for the areas of law covered in the traditional legal environment course. What makes much of this area of the law difficult is the construction of a set of logical rules for what is, essentially, human behavior. Law exists, in any society, to protect the expectations of the members of that society. Each person generally behaves in a certain way because of his or her expectations as a result of growing up in a given culture. The law protects those expectations. Yet, often the formal rules articulating those expectations are difficult to explain. Case teaching in business law cases is one mechanism by which students learn the rules of law, but it has not been used as much to help students understand some of the underlying reasons for those rules. As society changes, the rules need to adapt to those changes; understanding that

‘ Associate Professor, Business Law, University of Wisconsin at La Crosse. ’* Assistant Professor, Organizational Behavior, Michigan Technological University

NORMAN MACLEAN, A RIVER RUNS THROUGH IT 92 (1976).

142 1 Vol. 19 I The Journal of Legal Studies Education

there are reasons for those rules helps students to understand that the law is not static.

11. THE USE OF CASES

Case analysis compels students to apply course concepts to an actual legal situation, analyze the situation, identify critical issues and problems, and develop frameworks for diagnosing, analyzing, understanding and solving business legal problems3 Case analysis enhances students' analytical and problem-solving skills, develops their ability to deal with complexity, ambiguity and uncertainty in environments with multiple stakeholders and per~pectives.~ Furthermore, students enhance their ability to effectively articulate, advocate and defend a chosen position.5 The development of informed judgement is one of the primary reasons for utilizing cases6 to teach business law.

In teaching with cases, many business law faculty members use classic cases for each topic. Yet, many ofthese same cases can be utilized to explore different sets of legal issues, although they are rarely used t o do so. To help undergraduate business students understand law, while considering multiple perspectives simultaneously, this author has used four classic business law cases in nontraditional ways. By examining cases from different perspectives, i.e., by reframing them, students develop multiple legal analytical lenses. Legal reality is complex; looking at classic cases with only one perspective promotes a limited, historically based legal analysis. While useful, single lens approaches are also limiting.' Resolving e-commerce legal issues, for instance, often requires radically different perspectives than traditional law involving geographically based businesses. By asking students, counter to intuition, to use different lenses, to expand analytical options by reframing, we demonstrate that legal analysis occurs at multiple levels

Not only in law is case teaching a well-accepted pedagogy.'

' See, generally, Joan Gallos, Revisiting The Same Case: An Exercise In Refiaming, 16 J. MGMT. EDUC. 257 (1992).

See, generally, J.K. MATE- & T.J. COSEE, THE BUSINESS CASE METHOD (1981); TEACHING WITH CASES AT THE HARvARD BUSINESS SCHOOL ( c . R. Christensen ed., 1987); J. Blumenthal, Use of the Case Method in MRA Education, 4 PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT Q. 5 (1991). ' See, generally, R.G. Blunden & N.W. McGuiness, The Real Case Method: A Response

to Critics ofBusiness Education, 13 CASE RES. J. 106 (1993); Richard W. Dunford & Ian C. Palmer, C l a i m About Frames: Practitioners Assessment About The Utility Of RefFaming, 19 J. MGMT. EDUC. 96 (1995).

See, generally Michael Reynolds, Critical Reflection and Management Educatwm Rehabilitating Less Hiemrchical Approaches, 23 J. MGMT. EDUC. 537 (1999); Kim A Stewart & Joan Winn, The Case Debate: A New Approach to Case Teaching, 20 J. MGMT. EDW. 48 (1996). ' See, generally, Craig C. Lundberg & Jenna Lundberg, A Note On Linking Ideas And

Facts: Exercises For Enhancing Case Analysis, 17 J. MGMT. EDUC. 377 (1993). See, generally, Gallos, supra note 2.

2001 i Conceptual Lens Shift i 143

simultaneously andmay require radical intuitive mental leaps from past legal analytical approaches. While empirical evidence is limited, evidence by Dunford and Palmer suggests reframing techniques in organizational problem solving enhances problem manageability, creative solution generation, solution effectiveness, and successful change management.’ By examining facts from multiple perspectives, students begin to understand what the purpose of the rule is, instead of just learning the rule. They “figure the rule out for themselves,” so to speak. Students should then be more able to apply legal rule and legal intent to new and different, less traditional legal venues, like e-com- merce and international law. Thus, legal case reframing should enhance analytical and innovative legal problem-solving skills.

111. CASES SELECTED The cases that are ripe for different, nontraditional legal perspectives

are Palsgraf u. Long Island Railroad C ~ m p a n y , ~ LefFowitz u. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., lo Hamer u. Sidway, “ and Frigaliment Importing Co., Ltd., u. B.N.S. International Sales Corp.‘2 Because the majority of these cases are in most legal textbooks, almost every business law faculty member has used these cases in their classes. The textbooks (and thus most faculty members) use these cases in the traditional manner - to illustrate that one legal issuefrule of law that each case is known for. To help students learn these rules of law, yet also be able to apply them in new and expanded venues, it is beneficial to look at each of these cases in both the traditional manner and a nontraditional perspective, as discussed below.

A. Palsgraf u. Long Island Railroad

The Pulsgraf case has been much analyzed and discussed, both formally and informally among lawyers and others.13 Sentell, after reviewing some of the writings, concludes that this is one of the most dissected cases in American tort law.I4 “Professors Bohlen, Prosser, Smith, Gregory, Kalven, Noonen, and Eldredge are but illustrative of hundreds of others who have prodded, probed, and fantasized about the circumstances of ‘Palsgraf. Incessantly and insatiably, it unfolds, no

See, generally, Dunford & Palmer, supra note 4. Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 1928), reargument denied, 164

N.E. 564 (N.Y. 1928). lo Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 86 N.W. 2d 689 WM. 1957).

12 Frigaliment Importing Co., Ltd. v. B.N.S. InternationaI Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 116

See, eg., R. Perry Sentell, Jr. The Perils of Palsgraf; At Large and at Georgia, 28 GA.

Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256 W.Y. 1891).

(1960).

ST. B. J., Nov. 1991, at 82. 13

l4 Id. at 83.

144 I Vol. 19 I The Journal of Legal Studies Education

grist is too exceedingly fine for the mills of ‘Palsgraf .”I5 However, none of that analysis has reframed this case to auniquely different approach, but still relevant to the legal issue of negligence.

Historically, this case has been used to illustrate the concept of the “unforeseeable plaintiff,” which involves the element of proximate cause under the tort of negligence. The facts of this case, as stated by Chief Justice Cardozo, were as follows:

Plaintiff was standing on a platform of defendant’s railroad after buying a ticket to Rockaway Beach. A train stopped at the station, bound for another destination. Two men ran forward to catch it. One of the men reached the platform of the car without mishap, though the train was already moving. The other man, carrying a package, jumped aboard the car, but seemedunsteady as if about to fall. A guard on the car, who had held the door open, reached forward to help him in, and another guard on the platform pushed him from behind. In this act, the package was dislodged, and fell upon the rails. It was a package of small size, about fifteen inches long, and was covered by a newspaper. In fact it contained fireworks, but there was nothing in its appear- ance to give notice of its contents. The fireworks when they fell exploded. The shock of the explosion threw down some scales at the other end of the platform many feet away. The scales struck the plaintiff causing injuries for which she sues.16

The New York Court ofAppeals, on review, decided that Mrs. Palsgraf should not win because that act of helping the man onto the train was not the proximate cause of her injury, since she was not a “reasonably foreseeable” plaintiff.

Using this case for the proximate cause element of negligence as to what is or is not reasonably foreseeable is the traditional way of using this case in class. By using it in this way, its purpose is to help the students understand what the concept of proximate cause means in the tor t of negligence. The important fact in this traditional use of the case is that by the employees of the railroad’s act of helping the late passen- ger onto the train, thus causing this passenger to drop the package, resulted in the injury to Mrs. Palsgraf. So, under the analysis of proximate cause, it must have been reasonably foreseeable at that point that Mrs. Palsgrafcould be injured. “he court thought that that was not reasonably foreseeable and found against Mrs. Palsgraf. What is and is not reasonably foreseeable is very difficult to understand and teach.

l5 Id. at 84. l6 Palsgraf v. Long Island R. R. Co., 162 N.E. 99 (N.Y. 19281, reargument denied, 164

N.E. 564 (N.Y. 1928).

2001 I Conceptual Lens Shift I 145

Students tend to think in terms of probability, rather than what is foreseeable, although not a high probability.

However, by reframing the case, and looking at the case from a different perspective, the students begin to figure out for themselves what the element of proximate cause means, and how that relates to the question of how the duty t o the plaintiff was breached. During this analysis, the professor again stresses that the breach of the duty must, usually, be proven with specific facts. As stated above, in Palsgraf, the factual argument was that the defendant breached the duty to this plaintiff when the employees of the defendant helped a passenger who was carrying a bag onto the train. Given those facts, it would not have been reasonably foreseeable by the defendant’s employees that helping this bag-carrying passenger onto the train would cause a large scale sitting on the platform to fall over and cause Mrs. Palsgraf an injury. That possibility was simply too remote.

However, by reframing this case, the professor asks the students if there may be another set of facts that could be used such that injury to Mrs. Palsgraf could be reasonably foreseeable. The students have already learned that the specific way the plaintiff is injured does not have to be foreseen. This query of the students causes them to think about what factual argument was used in the actual case and what different, yet logical, factual argument might be used as the breach of the duty, and may, therefore, have made the injury to Mrs. Palsgraf reasonably foreseeable. The students soon realize that this different perspective involves a claim that breach ofthe duty to Mrs. Palsgrafmay have been some other act, and that breach may have been the proximate cause of her injury.

At this point, students also already understand that, under the tort of negligence, the railroad has a general duty to use reasonable care to protect its passengers and one must look at the specific act that breached that duty. After asking the above question, with additional probing by the professor, the students will almost always reach the conclusion that instead of arguing that the act of helping the bag toting passenger onto the train was the breach of the duty, one could reason- ably argue that the failure to secure the scale properly was the specific act that breached the duty to Mrs. Palsgraf. If the failure to secure the scale properly were the breach of the duty to Mrs. Palsgraf, then it would be reasonably foreseeable that the failure to secure would be the cause of her injury. By asking the students to think of this from a different perspective, they figure out how the rule applies and that it is much easier to understand than they, at first, thought. “hey “figure out” the rule and, therefore, understand it, instead of being told what the rule was with other examples. The students get involved when this case is reframed. They figure out that the failure to secure the scale properly

146 / Vol. 19 I The Journal of Legal Studies Education

could be the breach of the duty, and that it could be reasonably foresee- able that a scale that is not properly secured in a railroad station could tip over and hit someone on the head. The specific event that caused the “tipping” does not have to be foreseen, only that something could happen to tip over this large scale when it is sitting on a railroad platform.

Reframing this case gives the students a much clearer picture of how the act (the breach) that is reasonably foreseeable (proximate cause) and the resulting injury must be tied together. It makes it clear to the students that there must be a factual link, and that link must be a “reasonably foreseeable” one. When this approach is used in class, students better grasp what proximate cause means; it does not mean only “but for” something happening.

B. Lefkowitz V. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store

In the business law texts, the L e f i o ~ i t z ’ ~ case is generally in the section that covers offers and advertisements, with the focus being that advertisements are generally not offers because they fail to meet all of the elements of an offer. The elements of an offer consist of the intent to contract, clear and definite material terms and communication to an identifiable offeree. Advertisements generally fail to be offers either because they do not give all the material terms andfor there is no identifiable offeree.

In the Lefiowitz case, one of the newspaper advertisements became an issue. That advertisement essentially stated, ”One black Lapin stole worth $100 for $1.00 t o the first person that wants it on Saturday morning.” Mr. Lefkowitz was the first person in the store on the correct day and when he asked for the stole he was told that the store intended that i t be sold to a woman, and they refused to sell it to him. He sued for breach of contract.

The issue was whether that advertisement met all of the elements of an offer, and, if it did, then Mr. Lefkowitz accepted that offer by saying that he wanted that stole. The court said that it did meet all of the elements of an offer. By placing the advertisement the store clearly intended to contract. The advertisement also contained the material terms - one black lapin stole worth $100 to be sold for $1.00. By being the first person to ask to purchase it, Mr. Lefkowitz became the offeree since the advertisement made the first person that asked for the stole the identifiable offeree. He accepted by meeting all of those require- ments - he intended to purchase the stole, he did not change any of the material terms, and he communicated that to the store. The store breached the contract by not selling him this stole for $1.00.

The Lefiowitz case may be used to help the students understand why this advertisement was an offer when most advertisements are not

Lefkowitz v. Great Minneapolis Surplus Store, Inc., 86 N.W. 2d 689 (Minn. 1957). 17

2001 1 Conceptual Lens Shift I 147

offers. In this case, in fact, there were two other advertisements that the Great Minneapolis Surplus Store had run. To illustrate why that particular portion discussed above was different, the professor can look at the other two portions of this newspaper advertisement. The professor should ask the students to analyze the words in those other two portions of the advertisement t o determine exactly what is missing, and why, therefore, those portions are not offers. Students will invariably say that the other portions in the advertisement also make offers: there is intent to contract, it appears that all the material terms are present, and there is an identifiable offeree.

However, the students will fail t o notice that the terms in the other two portions of the advertisement are not clear and definite. They all describe the fur pieces but use the term “worth up to $100.’’ Such a term does not clearly identify which fur piece the store intends to sell: “up to $100” could mean a price of $1.00 to $100. To help the students discover the problem, the faculty member should tell the students that they are the judges in the case. Since they believe that the terms are clear and definite, they must tell the store which piece of fur the plaintiff is entitled to based on the advertisement. They will generally have trouble doing that and will realize what the terms “clear and definite” means in context. They realize that if the terms in the offer are not stated with reasonable certainty, it forces the judge to decide which fur the store meant to sell for $1.00.

Reframing this case so that the students look at the portions of the advertisement that are not traditionally part of the analysis helps students figure out the reason for the legal rule for themselves. This creates a much more permanent understanding of the rule than when the professor simply talks about it and tries to explain it to them. They are participating in a process that leads to their own discovery.

When concluding this particular area of law, the professor could go on to explain that in most advertisements the offeree is not identifiable because advertisements generally do not say “first come.” Therefore, in most advertisements, the person who wishes to make the purchase is making the offer and becomes the offeror.

By reframing this case, students really do understand what is meant by ”clear and definite terms” and by “identifiable offeree.” Students will then picture advertisements they have placed or seen; it helps them understand either the terms, the offeree, or a combination of those two are not clear in the vast majority of advertisements. Instead of just learning a rule that advertisements generally are not offers, students understand the underlying policy behind that rule. Instead of just learning some abstract rule out of context from a real business setting, students understand the logic behind the rule, and get a much better picture of contract law, and law in general. Students learn that there is

148 1 Vol. 19 I The Journal of Legal Studies Education

logic and policy underlying legal rules, not just a set of abstract rules requiring memorization.

C. Hamer I? Sidway

Many texts include Hamer u. Sidway" to show what is meant by one aspect of consideration under contract law - namely, what will be legally sufficient as consideration. In the case, William E. Story Sr., the uncle of William E. Story 11, promised the nephew that if he would refrain from drinking liquor, using tobacco, swearing and playing cards or billiards for money until the nephew turned twenty-one, he would give his nephew $5,000. The nephew performed his part of the bargain, but before the uncle performed his part of the bargain, the uncle died. Therefore, the lawsuit was against the uncle's estate.

Under the law, in order for the estate to be liable, there had to be a contractual promise, instead of only a gift promise (since there had been no completed gift, either). Therefore, the issue in the case was whether there was consideration given by the nephew for his part of the agreement. The court said that the nephew did give consideration because he gave up his legal rights to drink liquor, use tobacco, swear, and play cards or billiards for money until the age of twenty-one. Therefore, the nephew was entitled to enforce the contract and receive the $5,000.

The reasons this case is used in texts is that the case stands for the proposition that consideration does not have to be money, it may be anything that is legally sufficient, including giving up one's legal rights. The professor should then lay the groundwork for an understanding of what is meant by "legally sufficient" and the full impact of this case on the law of consideration by covering some of the different views of how expansive or restrictive the concept of consideration should be.

This approach will require a quick historical survey of the develop- ment of the concept of consideration. This historical survey involves an explanation that the Restatement of Contracts took the bargain theory approach, a restrictive approach that is based on Justice Holmes' view of consideration," and that "by the turn of the century, everywhere except New York, the strict bargain theory of consideration had won general acceptance."" The other view of consideration was more expansive." The Hamer case illustrates a more expansive view of consideration. This may lead into a discussion as to whether in today's business world the concept of consideration should be expansive or restrictive. This discussion should include a focus on e-commerce and

Hamer v. Sidway, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891). GRANT GILMORE, THE DEATH OF CONTRACT 60-61 (1974). Id. at 63.

*' Id. covers this in more detail starting at 60.

2001 I Conceptual Lens Shift 1 149

the changes that will bring to the law. One can look at the public policy issues raised by this, namely, should contracts be enforced or should persons who really intended to contract be excused due to some strict legal doctrine? This can lead to a very good discussion that will help students understand the concept of consideration and the use of law to support public opinion as to what type of “agreements” should be enforced by a court. This reframing, looking at the policy reasons for legal rules, will help the students discover the reasons for the rules. By asking students to discover the reasons for the rules of law, there comes an understanding that there is “a basic theme (in contract law) premised on the work ethic - promises will be enforced for the benefit of parties who, by their behavior, either by providing a return promise or perfor- mance or by otherwise having relied on the promise, have come to deserve the enforced benefit. This notion is basic to our culture, and, though its logic may not be immediately accessible to former lay people sitting in law lecture halls in September, it is not a logic that is totally inaccessible either.”22 By asking students to look at underlying reasons, reframing makes the logic “accessible” to them. Also, that “promising, in the context of contract, is.. .not about personal honor. It is about self- interest .... The expectation of a t least the return benefit converts promise into consideration. The expectation of a benefit, of a return performance, clinches personal resolve to perform an ~bl igat ion.”~~

Another, but narrower, reframing of this 1891case is to ask students what the result would be if this promise were made today. In order to have a legally enforceable contract, the consideration must at least be “legally sufficient,” versus some consideration that is not legal. The students quickly discover that most of the legal rights the nephew promised to give up would not be legal rights today. Today, a person may not legally drink liquor until they are twenty-one years old; they may not legalIy play cards and billiards for money until they are eighteen years old (in the states where that is legal); and they may not legally use tobacco until they are eighteen years old. However, it is legal to swear - regardless of age (at least if they are old enough to speak). This means that this same agreement today might not be enforceable because the nephew would not have given up something that was legally sufficient. The professor can point out that even though swearing is legal, the consideration of $5,000 was for all of the things together, with no way to separate the legal from that which is not legally sufficient; therefore, the entire contract might be void. A short discussion about the severability of contracts could then ensue. One can point out that if the agreement between the nephew and the uncle had been, for example,

22 Craig Leonard Jackson, Traditional Contract Theory: Old and New Attacks and Old

23 Id. at 366. and New Defenses, 33 NEW ENG. L. REV. 366-367 (Winter, 1999).

150 f Vol. 19 I The Journal of Legal Studies Education

$1000 for each of the “rights” (drinking, playing card, playing billiards, using tobacco, and swearing) then the court can sever the legal portion of the contract from the illegal portion and the portion that is legal - $1000 for not swearing - would then be enforceable. However, the parties to the contract must have created the means for severing the contract.

D. Frigaliment Importing Company Ltd. V B.N.S. International Sales Corporation

In theFrigaZiment case the buyer, a Swiss corporation, and the seller, a New York corporation, entered into a contract to purchase chickens. The words “U.S. Fresh Frozen Chicken” were used in the contract; the plaintiff, the Swiss corporation, thought that this meant “broiler” chickens,24 which to the plaintiff meant that these would be young chickens. The defendant, the New York corporation, had in mind “stewing” chicken^,'^ which in its understanding would be old chickens. When the plaintiff received the stewing chickens, it eventually refused to accept them and pay for them because they said that they were to receive broiling chickens. The defendant stated that what they paid for were stewing chickens and that is what the term in the contract meant. If the plaintiff had wanted broiling chickens, then the contract price would have been higher.

The traditional use of this case is to look at how the court applies the concept of usage of trade in trying to decide what the term “US. Fresh Frozen Chicken” meant in this contract. Having businesspeople, who are in that industry, testify as to the generally accepted definition of trade terms is the way that courts will determine the meaning of such a term. Afkr hearing such testimony, the court decided that in the chicken business, the term, as used in this contract, normally meant stewing and the buyer lost the lawsuit.

To reframe this case and have students discover what “usage of trade” means in the context of the business environment, the professor should ask the students what the result might be if this case had arisen today. Since avast majority of these students are around twenty years old and the case is a 1960 case, the students need to be informed about the business environment in the United States at that time - namely that international business was not nearly as common then, as it is today, and that courts, and others, were much more parochial in their attitude toward such business transactions. After laying that groundwork, the students will begin to think and will, ultimately, ask, ”who where these

Frigaliment Importing Co., Ltd. V. B.N.S. International Sales Corp., 190 F. Supp. 24

116,117 (1960). 25 Id. 26 Id. at 121.

2001 I Conceptual Lens Shift I 151

‘chicken experts’ who testified as to the meaning of the contract term?“ Since this is an early international case heard in the state of New York, these “experts” were persons engaged in the wholesale chicken business in New York. The students will then realize that, since this is an international business transaction, these experts should have been “international chicken experts.” The students have then discovered that “usage of trade” involves a fact question of ”what trade is this?” Only after answering that question can one determine who should testify as to a particular practice or word.

The class discussion may then focus on the provincialism that exists in many situations. An awareness of this provincialism, when dealing internationally, can help a businessperson avoid costly mistakes. The professor should also point out that, today, the lawyer for the Swiss corporation would most likely use expert testimony from persons engaged in the international wholesale chicken business to define what is meant by the contract term in other parts of the world. Using the case in this manner is useful to help students see that international business requires different, varied perspectives and an expanded view of the world.

The Frigaliment case may also be reframed to consider another rule of law - mutual mistake of fact. In order to explore the mutual mistake of fact issue, the professor should introduce Rafles u. Wichelhaus,” commonly known as the “Peerless” case. In that case, Seller agreed to sell to Buyer 125 bales of Surat cotton to arrive at Liverpool “ex ‘Peerless’ from Bombay.”’* However, there were two ships named “Peerless” that were sailing from Bombay. One sailed in October, and the other in December. Seller meant the Peerless that sailed in December, and Buyer meant the one that sailed in October, and refused to accept the cotton shipped on the December Peerle~s.’~ Based on those facts, the court said that the parties did not have a meeting of the minds due to a mutual mistake of fact - one party had the December Peerless in mind and the other had the October Peerless in mind. After introduc- ing the “Peerless” case, the professor may then ask the students if such an argument could be used in the Frigaliment case. The students will normally come up with the point that, in the Frigaliment case, one of the buyers thought the contract term meant “broilers” (therefore, young chickens), and the seller thought the contract term meant (‘stewing chickens” (therefore, old chickens). By reframing the Frigaliment case, students discover that this could also be a mutual mistake of fact case since the parties did not have a “meeting of the minds.” “hey now

’’ 159 Eng. Rep. 375 (1864). Id. Id. These were the facts stated in the Buyer’s answer to which the Seller demurred. 29

152 I Vol. 19 I The Journal of Legal Studies Education

understand what the words “meeting of the mind” and “mutual mistake of fact” actually mean since they figured that out for themselves.

The professor should remind the students that this alleged mutual mistake must still be proven by testimony as to the fact that the New York seller would normally think of stewing chickens when using that term, while the Swiss buyer would think of broiler chickens when using that term. By using Frigaliment, along with Rafles, students grasp more readily the idea of mutual mistake of fact because they “discov- ered” (instead of being just told) what is meant. It also helps students to understand that a lawyer’s job is to carefully consider the facts of the case, identify the correct legal issues and then argue that legal issue with the appropriate facts. Students do not always understand that the facts are very important to a case in order to identify the appropriate legal issue. One also reinforces in the students’ minds that the law is not black and white - rather it is mostly gray - but it does make sense when placed into the correct context. Therefore, it is sometimes necessary to be creative in the way a person looks at the legal issues and facts of each case.

V. CONCLUSION

One of the most difficult challenges for a business law professor is to help undergraduate business students to think like a lawyer; reframing cases helps to accomplish this. In reframing, students discover and explore cases in nontraditional ways, explore alternatives, get a diverse picture of how the law works, and discover the underlying reasons for those rules of law. They are not allowed to sit passively and gather information, rather, they are expected to participate and discover the law for themselves. This gives them the tools as to how one needs to think when dealing with legal issues, and, hence to learn to begin to think like lawyers.

Additionally, reframing, while using multipIe lenses, is powerful learning tool for students. I t often facilitates the development ofinsights fragment lawyers may gain only after years of experience. Lawyers, when approached with new, challenging, complex legal situations, may continue to examine problems with the same limited historical legal perspectives, assuming present legal analytical lenses are adequate, when, in fact, they are not at all. Clear benefits have arisen from using a multiple-perspectives approach in the classroom. Teaching these areas of the law is made somewhat easier, while also more effective; students enhance their mental picture of the law and facilitate the development of legal insight; students are able to diagnose legal challenges more effectively, and, in doing so, enhance their grasp of the way law works and the law’s purpose in supporting public, social, and economic policy goals.