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. 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.
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.