There would be no accident if the store floor was not wet from in the first place. The store owner breached its duty to keep the store in safe conditions. The cause of the injury was the wet floor which led to the incident. The damage in this case is body injury and loss of compensation. As the plaintiff Mae Tom has all the rights to sue the store owner for negligence.
This allowed Minkow and his team to find a building and stage a fake restoration site. The auditors never looked further to confirm that Minkow’s restoration business was real. The point here is that auditors should be held liable when they fail to maintain their required independence and professional skepticism. That is what happened to the Ernst & Whinney auditors in the ZZZZ Best case. They got too close to Minkow and became too dependent on his business.
In the case of Wexler vs Greenberg, we found that the owner of a trade secret is protected against the use of the information by others when it is wrongfully obtained by impermissible means (like theft). In this case, it appears that with the precautions taken by Toshiba (by limiting the production of flash memory devices to one factory in an attempt to protect the technology from leakage) information was definitely given to SK Hynix under unethical circumstances. The articles in The Japan News only stated that Sugita had been an engineer at Sandisk, not that he was the developer of the technology. In this argument, it certainly appears that Toshiba’s rights of ownership of the NAND research data were violated. The second argument of trade secret protection revolves around fair competition.
As for the auditor as for themselves standing up for management or clients has become uncertain. Anderson was the only firm that allow partners who could be in charge of an audit, and to overlook at ruling of the quality control partner. Anderson also crated disaster by getting rid of the company of Enron audit report paper documents, which is by law can lead to obstruction of justice and jail time with fines. 2. What was the prime motivation behind the decisions of Arthur Andersen’s audit partners on the Enron, WorldCom, Waste Management, and Sunbeam audits: the public interest or something else?
Hardage claimed that he was constructively discharged because of hostile work environment. US Supreme Court put liability on CBS to assert affirmative defense (Walsh 286). The company can successfully assert affirmative action in this case. 2. The legal issue to be decided The issue is about the sexual harassment of an employee by his supervisor.
Davey Jones could also argue misrepresentation—he was induced to enter into the contract based on representations made about the quality of the ship. There appears to be no evidence of fraudulent intent. As a result, Davey Jones will have to plead either innocent or negligent misrepresentation. Since he appears to want to cancel the contract, he can plead either innocent or negligent misrepresentation. If he claims fraudulent misrepresentation and is unsuccessful, then Davey Jones will likely have to pay Captain Jack Sparrow Inc. its full legal costs.
The legal issue in the Shero v. Grand Savings Bank is whether or not the termination of an at-will employee for his refusal to dismiss his pending claims against a third party constitutes a violation of that state’s public policy which would support a wrongful discharge action against the employer under the limited public policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine. The courts decided to dismiss the plaintiff’s petition in this particular case for failing to state a claim. In the world of legalities, it does matter whether the bank was justifiable in its termination of said employee due to the possible legal repercussions of the banks unjust actions in firing this employee. I believe that the bank had a good reason to terminate this employee. I think the bank terminated said employee because it would have been a conflict of interest to keep this employee employed.
Gibbons made out that Proctor was in charge of the child and didn’t know about her condition but the court convicted him on the grounds that he was the father and lived in the same house and should of noticed the condition she was in and had therefore neglected her. You also have a duty to minimise any danger you may have caused by a act. For example R v Miller (1983) in which Miller is a squatter in a house and accidentally catches his bed alight with a cigarette, he than just moved into another room without trying to stop the fire. He was found liable for the damage caused to the house because he had a chance to limit the damage. The other exceptions to the general rule are: * A duty arising from a statue.
LAW 421 Week 4 – Individual Assignment Agency Questions Question #1 – Lennie Edison Issue Can Vulcan be held responsible for the negligence of its employee Edison under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior? Rules of Law Victim-Unlucky (plaintiff) Respondeat Superior- Course and Scope of Employment Scienter of Vulcan Negligence of Edison Joint and Several Liability-Vulcan and Edison Comparative Fault Vulcan-the employer Respondeat Superior- Frolic and Detour Edison is solely liable Coming and going rule Edison-the employee (defendant) Not responsible for accident with Victim-Coming and going rule Comparative fault Analysis Victim-Unlucky Edison was negligent and caused accident with him. Vulcan as his employer is jointly and several liable under doctrine of respondeat superior (agency law). The best fact is that Edison was “always on call” which means that requirement of “course and scope of employment” is met 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Vulcan has scienter requirement for conduct of Edison.
Issue: Did Mrs. Mitchell’s action constitute misconduct so as to disqualify her from unemployment compensation benefits under s 59-9-5(b), N.M.S.A 1953? Rules of Law: The term “misconduct” is not defined in Unemployment Compensation Law. New Mexico adopted Wisconsin’s 249, 569-60, 296 N.W. 636, 640 (1941) term for “misconduct”. The definition states: Misconduct is limited to conduct evoking such willful or wanton behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer.