1. WIRETIME, Inc.’s advertisement which included claims against BUGusa, Inc. commits
an intentional tort of defamation. Defamation occurs when comments or claims are
explicitly made with the intention of causing harm. However, certain things must be
present in order to prove defamation. These include a defamatory statement, specific
claims directly about the company, spreading the statement to a third-party, and damages
that resulted from the statement(s). The claims made by WIRETIME, Inc. in an industry
publication that is well-known stands as evidence for many of the stipulations to claim
2. WIRETIME, Inc. offered Janet 10 percent over her current salary plus a $5,000 signing
bonus so that she would come to work for them, rather than their competitor BUGusa,
Inc. Janet had an existing contract with BUGusa, Inc. that prohibited working in the
same field until the contract expired. WIRETIME’s offered was meant to have Janet
ignore this clause in her contract. This means WIRETIME is guilty of the tort known
as enticing and interfering with an existing contract. Proving this means BUGusa, Inc.
must prove WIRETIME knew of their contract Janet and that they suffered damages from
3. Walter’s threats to harm Steve could be classified as an intentional tort that Walter would
be personally responsible for. However, BUGusa, Inc. may also be found responsible
for Walter’s actions. This is because Walter’s threats and actions were performed for
the benefit of BUGusa, Inc., regardless of whether they were authorized. The fact that
BUGusa, Inc. may benefit from the threats and actions of Walter, makes the company
liable for the intentional tort, in addition to Walter’s own personal responsibility.
4. The vendor is liable to look for someone to blame for the robbery, and the likely party
to receive the blame is BUGusa, Inc. This is because the robbery happened on their
property, at their dock while the vendor waited for the dock manager to return from
lunch, and because lights were burnt out. However, as a defense against the accusation,
BUGusa, Inc. should focus upon the upswing in crime in Shady Town, USA recently.
With more crime occurring as a whole, BUGusa, Inc. could claim that the robbery would
have still happened, despite the reasoning provided.
5. Brian, who works for BUG usa, Inc. and was speeding, was being negligent. The
question arises as to who is responsible for the tort, the driver or the company. The
answer to this question will be dependent upon the task that Brian was in the process
of completing when the accident occurred. If Brian was running a personal errand,
the tort of negligence would fall upon him personally. On the other hand, if Brian was
performing business for BUGusa, Inc., the company will be held responsible for the tort.
6. The missing insulator, which caused the injury, was included in later designs released by
BUGusa, Inc. allowing Sally to file torts against the company. Sally could pursue many
torts including implied warranty, design defect, negligence, and inadequate warning.
When the equipment was purchased, there was an implied warranty that the equipment
was safe to use as is. Likewise, the company knew the insulator should be included but
failed to include it based upon the price of production, warranting the tort of both design
defect and negligence. Because the company knew there was a potential for injury by
foregoing the insulator, appropriate and adequate warnings should have been provided
with the equipment; Failure to do so allows Sally to pursue the tort of inadequate
warnings as well.
You must log in and be a buyer of this download to submit a review.