Bug Tort Comparison

BUG, Inc. Tort Comparisons

Michelle Beach, Elizabeth Camacho, Teresa Devereux, Jodi Kellett, Van Phan, Joy Rowe

and Jaclyn Wells

University of Phoenix

Business Law (BUS415)

Joseph Balistocky

March 18, 2007

BUG, Inc. Tort Comparisons

The United States legal system protects companies and employees from being affected by the constant moving, ever changing technology trend that is traveling across the world today. This paper will be comparing several events that have taken place at BUG, Inc. with their competitors, employees and customers. Comparison of the events and the legal torts that are being violated will be reviewed for each incident. We will discuss areas that the company or the employee or customer should be taking further action. With the following examples of torts we can see that exposure to legal issues in the workplace is evident and we may need to be alert to what action should be taken as a resolution.

WIRETAP and Steve

WIRETAP is a fairly new company that is currently located in New York City. Steve, an employee who works for a competitor called BUG Inc., has been sent by his company to WIRETAP to get a job. WIRETAP, not realizing that Steve is employed by BUG, has hired him to work in their research and development department. While working at WIRETAP, Steve has forwarded all the email correspondence between the BUG, Inc. officers (both domestic and international) to his boss at BUG, Inc. Once a week, Steve meets with his boss from BUG to give him an update on all the information he obtained about the BUG product lines. Steve has put himself at substantial professional risk by being a spy at WIRETAP for BUG, Inc.. If Steve is caught he can be charged with felonies for attempting to and/or obtaining confidential information from a public utility, wrongful use of computer data, identity theft and conspiracy.

Now BUG, Inc.'s participation exposes the company to an enormous liability. There are multiple lawsuits against the company with potential damages. The company may have to pay thousands or millions of dollars in civil penalties and monetary damages to cover expenses of the investigation. The civil law is divided into three main areas and in this particular scenario it would fall under property. Property deals with establishing and enforcing the rights of possession and ownership. Trespassing is an example of a legal wrong in the law of property.

Investigation of an Email Even

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, also known as the RICO act is most commonly used in cases for racketeering, blackmail, and conspiracy, but has also been very successful in "the ability to indict or sanction individuals for their behavior and actions committed against witnesses and victims in alleged retaliation or retribution for cooperating with law enforcement or intelligence agencies".(Wikipedia, 2007) As well, complaints alleging underlying acts of wire, email internet, mail or securities fraud are extremely prevalent. The proceeding can become lengthy and complex due to their nature and the amount of witnesses and information that must be obtained. The purpose of the RICO act is to liable the enterprise, BUG, Inc., and the person whom is committing the wrongful act, Steve. In the case of the RICO act with regards to BUG, Inc. versus WIRETAP, WIRETAP must prove that Bug, Inc., played a substantial role in Steve conspiring to retrieve confidential information from WIRETAP. In addition to this, it must be proven that there was some kind of motivation for Steve to be sent to the other company as a 'spy'. There must be a considerable case made by WIRETAP to prove that the company BUG, Inc. had any involvement with Steve's indiscretions. For example, Steve continuing to be on the payroll at BUG, Inc. while employed at WIRETAP, proof of forwarding emails to executives at BUG, witness testimony that Steve was endorsed for employment at WIRETAP by BUG, and proof of possible blackmail rewards for retrieving information for BUG, Inc..

WIRETAP and the Security Guard

Walter, who is a security guard for BUG, Inc., realized that Steve was working for WIRETAP at the same time as working for BUG and made the decision to detain Steve in a small soundproof room for six hours in order to find out Steve's purpose at BUG. Walter could have put himself in danger of committing torts by falsely imprisoning Steve against his will. False imprisonment is described as the "intentional confinement or restraint of another person without authority or justification and without that person's consent".(Cheeseman, 2004) Although Walter is a security guard for BUG, it does not give him the right to detain Steve in a room while interrogating him.

Another crime committed by Walter in this scenario is assault. While Walter had Steve in the soundproof room, he threatened Steve that he would hurt him if Steve does not confess everything to him. Assault is described as (1) the threat of immediate harm or offensive contact, or (2) any action that arouses reasonable apprehension of imminent harm. Actual physical contact is unnecessary. (Cheeseman, 2004) Although Walter did not act on his threat, he still could face assault charges because the fact that he presented the intent to harm him and Steve responded to the fearful situation.

BUG may be liable for Walter's actions because of vicarious liability. The torts committed by Walter occurred while as he was acting within scope of his employment with BUG. An employee acts within the scope of employment when performing work assigned by the employer or engaging in a course of conduct subject to the employer's control. An employer may be held liable if it is shown that the employee had improperly carried out his duties.(Wikipedia, 2007)

BUG E commerce Advice

The company would like to sell its products via the Internet or if this were not possible they would like to consider the option of selling the domain name rights to BUG.com. There are international ecommerce laws that govern the taxation of products and the privacy of clients for products sold in interstate and international locations. The company should confirm the requirements for the specific target locations and determine if they will have to add