BUGusa Inc. & WIRETIME Inc. Scenarios Essay

BUGusa Inc. is based in any(prenominal) state USA. The accompany provides critical softw be program product technology that all toldows eaves dropping, sound collection and much to law enforcement agencies doneout the states and federal governing body deep down the United States of America. BUGusa Inc. is looking to hit the roof its run, expertise and softwargon at an internationalist level. In the course of their operations thither assume been nigh questionable styles concerning beledgeable and external factors that are affecting the unravel of operations and in whatever drives, this air whitethorn pull in serious issues with the law of the software and its protective cover. WIRETIME Inc. is a fairly vernal company competing against BUGusa Inc. That collectks to gain education on BUGusa Inc. by infiltrating its tapforce and recruiting its dress hat and brightest. end-to-end this paper I will cope some of those case scenarios and do my best to answer t he questions set forth by the assignment.1st Scenario Has WIRETIME Inc. pull any torts?BUGusa Inc. vs. WIRETIME Inc.In this case scenario we find that WIRETIME Inc. has make an designed negative public statement against BUGusa Inc, and much specifically against its product reliability. This behavior by WIRETIME Inc. female genitalia be seen as a gross move against BUGusa Inc. reputation, thus causation distrust in their products and services from the public public, state and federal agencies home and ab lane. The behavior demonstrated by WIRETIME Inc. temporary hookup non uncommon in the line of products world, git be seen as a sprinkling or libel tort, and this can shit BUGusa Inc. leverage against WIRETIME Inc. in a lawsuit.BUGusa Inc. whitethorn sue for any marketing link up costs it will incur to succor its image rise to impertinently and higher(prenominal) levels of trust within its trustworthy customers and proximo customers nationally and internationally it w ouldntbe a surprise if they also translate to collect from possible damages it whitethorn have incurred from actual or probable loss 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 argument that its invention was not to harm BUGusa Inc. reputation because their statements were sen sentencent based and not objective facts. In order to re merelytal the argument by WIRETIME Inc., and to build new trust, BUGusa Inc. could demonstrate that its products and services execute closely beyond the bingle- 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 background against their enemy and possibly create new billet and stronger relationships with its consumers, and, at the same time win the lawsuit against WIRETIME Inc .2nd Scenario Has WIRETIME Inc. perpetrate any torts?Janet, head teacher of the R&D department at BUGusa Inc. has two much years in her contract with her flow rate company. She has been passinged a much lucrative hazard to work for the competition (WIRETIME Inc.) But in that respect is a provision in her current contract that prohibits her to work for the competition for the interest two years of her contract change surface if she was fired before that time expires. This is called the non make out clause. Janet let out this study (non compete clause) to the head of human resources at WIRETIME Inc. when he or she offered Janet employment with their company. You would think that this info would monish any further headhunting approach from WIRETIME Inc. because of the consequences Janets go bad of duty to BUGusa Inc. may cause her if she accepts and the liability WIRETIME Inc. picks up by performing this intervening event against the non compete clause BUGusa Inc. has on Janets contract.After Janet receptive the non compete clause, the head of human resources at WIRETIME Inc. persisted and offered to increase her pay 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, effectual purpose, and writing. While it was illegal to work for the competitor, it was not illegal for her to resign from BUGusa Inc. WIRETIME, clearly 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. tertiary Scenario WIRETIME Inc. (Steve & Walter)Discuss BUGusa Inc. indebtedness for Walterss actions.WIRETIME Inc. has made it its main mission to infiltrate its competitor and retrieve high value deposeation from BUGusa Inc. by all path necessary. WIRETIME Inc. sends one of its employees, (STEVE) to apply for a blot at BUGusa. Such is their luck that Steve, not altogether gets hired, but he secures a position within BUGusa Inc. research and development department. BUGusa Inc. failed to make water that Steve was an employee at WIRETIME Inc. thus placing the companies sensitive information at risk. While at BUGusa, Steve was picked up by an attentive security keep back (Walter) who found out by dint of the grapevine and investigation, that Steve was a spy amongst them working for the competitor.Walter obstinate to approach Steve and take him in to a soundproof room, and retrieve the truth from Steve with intimidating threats against his visible undecomposedty for sestet hours. Steve, of course fearing for his strong-arm comfortably existence, disclosed his purpose in the company what information he has passed along and whom he really worked for. While Walterss frustration with Steve is understandable, his discussion of the situation is totally unacceptable and carries some penalties with it. Walter created an atmosphere of stress, intellectually and physically against an employee, disregardless of his true intentions BUGusa Inc. should of done its homework through background checks against Steve and probably saved itself the headache. Nevertheless, Walterss behavior was thuggish and criminal thus creating the tort of assault. Walter could have held Steve and called the police, thusly followed through with charges against Steve and WIRETIME Inc. but his course of action may endpoint in Steve going after BUGusa Inc through vicarious liability. This liability holds BUGusa Inc. as liable for Walterss behavior and actions while performing his normal duties in the workplace.4th Scenario park lot of BUGusa Inc. Crime problem.What defense if any, may be procurable to BUGusa Inc.?As with all working environments, it is the legal and implied duty of any employer to provide a healthy and safe work environment for its employees, vendors and any separate jockstraps visiting or performing work at any job land site within the United States of America. hither we can see that this particular BUGusa Inc. branch that is find in Shady town USA, has been the dupe of multiple attacks on its employees and its vendors and also heavy-handed 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 aware of this problem and failed to share it aright. I do not see any available defense for BUGusa Inc. on the matter of the vendor organism attacked and robbed while waiting to deliver goods at the readiness mentioned above. BUGusa has a duty to its employees, vendors and any patron performing any job within its premises to provide adequate base hit measures that will deter thiefs from braking in to cars and vandalizing c ompany airscrew, but roughly importantly from harming the people within its property at all times.Having a well lit parking lot means all lights are working properly and to their full capacity, and in this case, they had a hardly a(prenominal) lights that were not operating at all. Also, well-lit areas are not enough security against a hostile environment that has in the by proven 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 disregard caused that the vendor become another victim of the evil wave affecting its clandestine property. The injury to the employees and vendor are financial, mental and may well be physical if not yet. The tort that applies here is sloppiness 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 skirt community, it could have avo ided such negligence.5th Scenario aroused and Brian (BUGusa Inc.)What defense may be available to BUGusa Inc.?The following Scenario holds two parties as responsible for failing to perform their required duties as responsible citizens and employees. By both parties being abstracted, they are both are potentially at fault they violated in-person and business duty, breached their duties to their safety and business safety, cause an accident 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 speed limit or driving in accordance with road and area conditions. Randy failed to obey the publication sign and assumed the risk of being impacted by another vehicle. Here we can apply comparative or contributory negligence because they were both at fault, if BUGusa Inc. can prove that Randy had more than to do with the cause of the accident then they may well win the case.sixth Scenario Sally may have a successful case against BUGusa Inc. for what Tort? respectable as in the actual case of General Motors, BUGusa Inc. failed to notify the consumers of the potential hazards of apply their products. BUGusa tried to save money at the risk of consumers safety by taking shortcuts in the manufacturing and assembly process, keen that such shortcuts may result in short circuit and in some cases harm to its product users they moved in front with its sale and fielding. Strict Product Liability Tort states that the manufacturer, distributor and seller are responsible for any harm and or injury caused by failure to inform of manufacturing defects or design defects. By intention the product without the necessary insulation, Sally was open to a short and suffered injuries. BUGusa Inc. is clearly in hot water and can be liable for al l harm and injuries stemming from this negligent act.ReferencesCornell University. (2014). Tort. Retrieved from http//www.law.cornell.edu/wex/tort Expert Law. (2014). Negligence / in-person Injury. Retrieved from http//www.expertlaw.com/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.