LAW/421 Contemporary Business Law
Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc., Advertisement
Has WIRETIME, Inc., committed any torts? If so, explain.
WIRETIME, Inc., has committed a tort which is “a civil wrong where one party has acted, or in some cases failed to act, and that action or inaction causes a loss to be suffered by another party” (Melvin, S.P., 2011, p. 208). Tort was committed, because WIRETIME, Inc., made a statement, that will hurt the Bugusa, Inc., reputation. The statement made is called defamatory statement which is “A false and defamatory statement concerning a party’s reputation or honesty, or a statement that subjected a party to hate, contempt, or ridicule. In order to qualify as defamatory, the statement must have a tendency to harm the reputation of the plaintiff” (Melvin, S.P., 2011, p. 209). Next WIRETIME, Inc., placed an ad in a well-known industry magazine that contained a statement that is accusing BUGusa for having a bad product. By doing this, WHIRETIME, Inc., dissemination to a third party which is an “element requires that the statement must somehow reach the ears or eyes of someone other than the tortfeasor and the victim” (Melvin, S.P., 2011, p. 209). Then, it has the third element, the specificity, which means in its ad WHIRETIME, Inc., specified the particular party, business and product (Melvin, S.P., 2011). After this stament, BUGusa will probably suffer damages, or loss of clinets due to the negative ad that WHIRETIME, Inc., stated regarding BUGusa’s product. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet)
Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts? If so, explain.
In Janet’s case, WIRETIME, Inc., committed a Tortuous Interference with Current Contractual Relationship Tort which means” When one party induces another party to break an existing contract with another party, the inducing party may be liable for any damages suffered by the innocent party as a result of breaking the contract “(Melvin, S.P., 2011, p. 214). In this case WIRETIME, Inc., committed the tort because when Janet shows the HR manager a copy of her contract, WHIRETIME has a specific knowledge of her contract with BUGusa. When the HR officer ignores the contract, which states that is valid for two more yers, and responds to Janet with an amazing offer it satisfies the second element of the Tortuous Interference with Current Contractual Relationship which is actively interfered with the contract “(Melvin, S.P., 2011). The third element of the tort, the caused identifiable damages (losses) to the injured party “(Melvin, S.P., 2011), was committed because when the head of research and development is unexpectedly leaving, monetary loss can result with the departure, as well as vital company information. Monetary and timely loss will also occur because Janet’s replacement has to be found and retrained. All of this may have resulted in more damages such as loss of contracts, valuable clients, time, and finances.
Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter)
Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc., may have for Walter’s actions.
In this scenario we have the case of a security guard, Walter, detaining another employee, Steve, under the suspicion that he is a spying for another company. It is necessary to evaluate the “scope” of duties that Walter has to determine if he was acting within the parameters of his job. Even though there was suspicion of possible espionage, Walter had no physical evidence to warrant the detention of Steve. With this in mind, Walter’s actions are an example of the intentional tort of false imprisonment. This kind of tort is defined as “intentional infliction of confinement upon another party”. In business context businesses have what is known as “merchant’s privilege” that gives them certain rights to momentarily detain individuals suspected of shoplifting. However, businesses must abide by certain guidelines in order to be covered under these...