Law 421

University of Phoenix Material BUGusa, Inc. , Worksheet Use the scenarios in the Bugusa, Inc. , link located on the student website to answer the following questions. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. , Advertisement Has WIRETIME, Inc. , committed any torts? If so, explain. Wiretime, Inc. ’s ad in the well-known industry magazine stated that BUGusa, Inc. electronic recording devices are low quality and not reliable for more than a month (University of Phoenix, 2013). This tort is defamation since it can harm the company’s reputation.

This written defamation, or libel, falls under the element of specificity because the statement is about a specific party, business and product. In order to receive damages, BUGusa, Inc. will have to prove they suffered financial harm from this statement (Melvin, 2011). Reference: Melvin, S. P. (2011). Fundamentals of the Legal Environment of Business. Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database University of Phoenix. (2013). BUGusa, Inc. [Multimedia]. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, Law/421 website. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Janet) Has WIRETIME, Inc. committed any torts?

If so, explain. Wiretime, Inc. has committed business competition tort or interference tort. Janet has a non-compete clause in her contract with BUGusa, Inc. , which is valid for additional years. Janet’s contract with BUGusa, Inc. states that she is not to work for a competitor while she is still employed with them, is fired from the company, or resigns. Wiretime, Inc. could be liable for damages because they intentionally interfered with a valid contractual relationship between Janet and BUGusa, Inc. (Zuber, 2009). Janet can also be liable for breaking her contract. Reference Zuber, J.

J. (2009). Interference Torts: When Business Competition Is Actionable. Business Torts Journal, 16(4), 12-15. Scenario: WIRETIME, Inc. (Steve and Walter) Discuss any liability BUGusa, Inc. , may have for Walter’s actions. Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. , Plant Parking Lot What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer. Although actions for failure to provide adequate security can be brought against BUGusa, Inc. , BUGusa could say that they are not responsible for the actions of criminals. , Unless BUGusa was in some way actually responsible for the damage, they are not liable.

The injured party cannot seek to hold a possessor or owner of property directly or vicariously liable when the act was arguably, not caused by the possessor or owner. The acts of unknown third parties are typically not covered under general liability policies. References: McDaniel & Anderson, LLP- http://www. mcdas. com/liability_article. htm e-lawresources. co. uk- http://www. e-lawresources. co. uk/Causation. php Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Randy and Brian) What defenses may be available to BUGusa, Inc.? Explain your answer. Randy committed a tort of negligence when he was speeding and colliding with Brian’s vehicle.

He did not intentionally hit him but his speeding contributed to the accident. Randy was negligent in his driving BUGusa, Inc. ’s vehicle. BUGusa’s defense could be held under absolute privilege which states that all federal officials have immunity in the Constitution via the “speech and debate clause” and BUGusa contracts with the federal government as well, making them a federal official as well. Melvin, S. P. (2011). Fundamentals of the Legal Environment of Business. Retrieved from The University of Phoenix eBook Collection database University of Phoenix. (2013). BUGusa, Inc. Multimedia]. Retrieved from University of Phoenix, Law/421 website. Scenario: BUGusa, Inc. (Sally) Sally may have a successful case against BUGusa, Inc. , for what torts? Explain your answer. Officer Sally DoGood has a successful case that can fall under two torts. The first tort is the negligence tort. Negligence is an accidental (without willful intent) event that caused harm to another party (Melvin, 2011). BUGusa, Inc. did not intentionally mean to harm Officer DoGood with its product but the company did know that the older models did not have the insulator to prevent the shorting.

The shorting of the equipment Officer DoGood was using caused harm to her. The company did not include the insulator to the older models because of the production cost. The second tort that could be used in Officer DoGood’s case is the strict liability tort. According to Nolo Law For All (2013), strict liability is automatic responsibility for damages due to manufacture or use of equipment or materials that are inherently dangerous, such as explosives, animals, poisonous snakes, or assault weapons.

A person injured by such equipment or materials does not have to prove the manufacturer or operator was negligent in order to recover money damages. BUGusa, Inc. knew that the older model equipment was defective but did not go back and installed the insulators to the older models but installed them in the new models that Shady Town Policy had not purchased yet. References Melvin, S. P. (2011). The legal environment of business: A managerial approach: Theory to practice. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Strict liability. (2013). In NOLO Law for All. Retrieved from http://www. nolo. com/dictionary/strict-liability-term. html