BUGusa Inc. & WIRETIME Inc. Scenarios Essay

BUGusa Inc. is based in whatsoever soil USA. The comp each admits critical softw are technology that in allows eaves dropping, sound collection and more to jurisprudence enforcement agencies finishedout the states and federal government within the united States of America. BUGusa Inc. is looking to fly off the handle its services, expertise and software at an international level. In the conformation of their trading operations there take a leak been round questionable behaviors concerning internal and external factors that are affecting the flow of operations and in some drives, this behavior whitethorn cause serious issues with the integrity of the software and its security. WIRETIME Inc. is a fairly parvenue company competing against BUGusa Inc. That seeks to gain information on BUGusa Inc. by infiltrating its workforce and recruiting its top hat and brightest. Throughout this paper I will address some of those case scenarios and do my best to answer the question s set forth by the assignment. inaugural Scenario Has WIRETIME Inc. committed any civil wrongs?BUGusa Inc. vs. WIRETIME Inc.In this case scenario we find that WIRETIME Inc. has made an learned negative public statement against BUGusa Inc, and more specifically against its product reliability. This behavior by WIRETIME Inc. can be seen as a gross plump against BUGusa Inc. reputation, thus causing distrust in their products and services from the general public, state and federal agencies home and abroad. The behavior demonstrated by WIRETIME Inc. season non uncommon in the business world, can be seen as a defamation or libel tort, and this can give BUGusa Inc. leverage against WIRETIME Inc. in a lawsuit.BUGusa Inc. may sue for any marketing related cost it will incur to help its image rise to new and high levels of trust within its current customers and future customers nationally and internationally it wouldntbe a surprise if they also try to collect from mathematical damages it may rescue incurred from authentic or potential outlet of profit stemming from the ad circulated by WIRETIME Inc. and the distrust it may have already or potentially cause in the future against BUGusa Inc. WIRETIME Inc. could make the motive that its intention was non to harm BUGusa Inc. reputation because their statements were opinion based and non objective facts. In order to rebuttal the argument by WIRETIME Inc., and to somatogenic body new trust, BUGusa Inc. could demonstrate that its products and services work well beyond the one-month capabilities that WIRETIME Inc. suggested on its supposedly opinion ad. By demonstrating that their software and services work beyond the one- month mark, they can surely hold their ground against their competitor and maybe create new business and stronger relationships with its consumers, and, at the same time allure the lawsuit against WIRETIME Inc.2nd Scenario Has WIRETIME Inc. committed any torts?Janet, head of the R&D departmen t at BUGusa Inc. has two more years in her iron with her current company. She has been purported a much lucrative opportunity to work for the disputation (WIRETIME Inc.) But there is a provision in her current agreement that prohibits her to work for the competition for the following two years of her contract flush if she was fired before that time expires. This is called the non contest clause. Janet disclosed this information (non compete clause) to the head of human resources at WIRETIME Inc. when he or she offered Janet employment with their company. You would speculate that this information would deter any further headhunting approach from WIRETIME Inc. because of the consequences Janets discover of vocation to BUGusa Inc. may cause her if she accepts and the liability WIRETIME Inc. picks up by acting this intervening event against the non compete clause BUGusa Inc. has on Janets contract. afterwards Janet exposed the non compete clause, the head of human resource s at WIRETIME Inc. persisted and offered to increase her collapse by 10% and added a $5,000.00 signing bonus to the deal. Janet had a duty to BUGusa Inc. and she committed a breach of contract by accepting the offer from the competing company by evidence of acceptance. There was an offer, acceptance, consideration,consent, capacity, legal purpose, and writing. enchantment it was embezzled to work for the competitor, it was not illegal for her to resign from BUGusa Inc. WIRETIME, all the way intended to have Janet violate her legal agreement and contractual restriction with BUGusa Inc. and committed the tort of interference in a contractual relationship between Janet and BUGusa Inc.third Scenario WIRETIME Inc. (Steve & Walter)Discuss BUGusa Inc. Liability for Walterss actions.WIRETIME Inc. has made it its main mission to dawn its competitor and retrieve high value information from BUGusa Inc. by all means necessary. WIRETIME Inc. sends one of its employees, (STEVE) to apply for a military strength at BUGusa. such is their luck that Steve, not only gets hired, but he secures a position within BUGusa Inc. research and development department. BUGusa Inc. failed to realize that Steve was an employee at WIRETIME Inc. thus placing the companies reactive information at risk. While at BUGusa, Steve was picked up by an attentive security guard (Walter) who found out through the grapevine and investigation, that Steve was a spy amongst them work for the competitor.Walter decided to approach Steve and take him in to a soundproof room, and retrieve the truth from Steve through intimidating threats against his physiologic resort for six hours. Steve, of course fearing for his physical well organism, disclosed his purpose in the company what information he has passed along and whom he truly worked for. While Walterss frustration with Steve is understandable, his handling of the situation is totally unacceptable and carries some penalties with it. Walter created a n atmosphere of stress, mentally and physically against an employee, regardless of his true intentions BUGusa Inc. should of done its training through background checks against Steve and probably executed itself the headache. Nevertheless, Walterss behavior was thuggish and sinful thus creating the tort of assault. Walter could have held Steve and called the police, then followed through with charges against Steve and WIRETIME Inc. but his course of action may result in Steve going after BUGusa Inc through vicarious liability. This liability holds BUGusa Inc. as responsible for Walterss behavior and actions term perform his normal duties in the workplace.4th Scenario Parking mint candy of BUGusa Inc. offensive problem.What demurral if any, may be available to BUGusa Inc.?As with all working environments, it is the legal and implied duty of any employer to provide a healthy and gum elastic work environment for its employees, vendors and any other patrons visiting or perform ing work at any job site within the United States of America. Here we can see that this particular BUGusa Inc. branch that is located in Shady town USA, has been the victim of multiple attacks on its employees and its vendors and also throw away pray to vandalism. This problematic issue is well known to the residents of the community where BUGusa has its building this leads me to know that management at BUGusa Inc. must have also been conscious(predicate) of this problem and failed to address it properly. I do not see any available defense for BUGusa Inc. on the matter of the vendor being attacked and robbed while waiting to deliver goods at the facility mentioned above. BUGusa has a duty to its employees, vendors and any patron performing any job within its premises to provide adequate safety measures that will deter thiefs from braking in to cars and vandalizing company situation, but most importantly from harming the people within its property at all times.Having a well lit p arking lot means all lights are working properly and to their full capacity, and in this case, they had a few lights that were not operating at all. Also, well-lit orbital cavitys are not enough security against a hostile environment that has in the bygone expressn to be dangerous against employees and vendors. The company breached its duty by not upgrading its security measures after the first reported assaults against its employees, this negligence caused that the vendor begin another victim of the crime wave affecting its private property. The distress to the employees and vendor are financial, mental and may well be physical if not yet. The tort that applies here is negligence on the part of BUGusa Inc. If they would have reevaluated their security stance against the rise in crime and violence on their property and its surrounding community, it could have avoided such negligence.5th Scenario Randy and Brian (BUGusa Inc.)What defense may be available to BUGusa Inc.?The follo wing Scenario holds two parties as responsible for failing to perform their required duties as responsible citizens and employees. By both(prenominal) parties being abstracted, they are both are potentially at dishonor they violated personal and business duty, breached their duties to their safety and business safety, causing an adventure and damages to private and business property not to mention the physical injuries if any, and obvious financial injuries to personal and business property. Both Randy and Brian were negligent in their actions, Brian, as an employee of BUGusa Inc. could have avoided the crash if he were following the locomote limit or driving in accordance with road and area conditions. Randy failed to obey the yield sign and assumed the risk of being impacted by another vehicle. Here we can apply relative or contributory negligence because they were both at fault, if BUGusa Inc. can prove that Randy had more to do with the cause of the accident then they may w ell win the case.6th Scenario Sally may have a successful case against BUGusa Inc. for what Tort?Just as in the actual case of General Motors, BUGusa Inc. failed to notify the consumers of the potential hazards of using their products. BUGusa tried to save money at the risk of consumers safety by victorious shortcuts in the manufacturing and assembly process, knowing that such shortcuts may result in short circuit and in some cases harm to its product users they locomote forward with its sale and fielding. Strict Product Liability Tort states that the manufacturer, distributor and seller are responsible for any harm and or defacement caused by failure to inform of manufacturing defects or design defects. By aim the product without the necessary insulation, Sally was exposed to a short and suffered injuries. BUGusa Inc. is clearly in hot water and can be liable for all harm and injuries stemming from this negligent act.ReferencesCornell University. (2014). Tort. Retrieved from h ttp//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort Expert Law. (2014). Negligence /Personal Injury. Retrieved from http//www.expertlaw.com/ subroutine library/personal_injury/negligence.html Hill, M. (2011). The Legal Environment of Business. A Managerial Approach Theory to Practice. Phoenix, AZ Copyright McGraw-Hill Company.