Legal issues

Are Deed. Charlie and Bella to a fault probable for the causal agency against the solid by their client Mr.. Laurent.? 2. If so how far responsible argon the separate partner in crimes for Jakes mistake? 3. If no a nonher(prenominal) partner apt, what excludes them? 4. Are thither whatsoever(prenominal) defenses to each of the members of the firm from being liable to the practice of lawsuit? Law leagues coalition dress 1891 (SLD) Nature of Partnership Determination of universe of discourse of partnership give voice venture partnership Liability of Incoming partner annihilation of partnershipsComp each Law Khan v maid 2000 Nature of partnership Cox v Carlson 1916 word venture and partnership how the partnerships atomic number 18 micturated and what sustains them Hammerer Pity Ltd v Egg 1996 Liability of retiring partner does a recently retired partner founder any liability to the losses or wage of the firm? Application The rule s that persons who agree to car ry on a business line bodily function as a joint venture d not become partners until they actually embark on the activity in question (text, 328).This Is In regards to Bella who take overed she had no liability towards the lawsuit against the firm as she had all been working at that place a short while and was not at work the time the stroking happened. Bella had yet been working there with a view for return (Text, 328) which happened to be the activity in question. With this same question in mind t has been secernd that It is executable for a person to be a partner even though they do not have a claim to the share of the profit (text,328).Bella had not contri hardlyed any capital upon joining the firm scarce still took on the Job of a partner at the firm through with(predicate) assistance. Unlike the consequence of Cox (text,331 ) whereby ACH caller was found with different liabilities for their parts of the Joint venture sorcerous Zillions Is a deferent cutting as they were continuing with the business In an effort to get a profit. Where there is profit manduction and a more integrated business expression (text. 30) as n the show movement of magic Zillions it means that there was an aim for profit which is what considers the determination of existence of a Partnership amongst all four persons. In immortalize for a partner to have been qualified as retired there has to be written tab that Charlie had actually been excluded from his entity and all its business, but the berth does not tumesce specify this. The implied 1 OFF partner it means that they moldiness contribute equally towards losses (text,335) and in this fount the loss is the lawsuit which is aimed at everyone a part of dissimulation Zillions. A partner who retires from a firm does not thereby cease to be liable for the partnership debts incurred before their retirement (text,343), this aspect of the Liability of retiring partner falls on Charlie. Charlie has since ret ired from the business due to dialect and ill-health and has limited personal funds ( facts), although Charlie had been retired but still part of the entity during the accident it disqualifies him from not being liable for the lawsuit against Magic Zillions as he was a partner consequently when the accident happened.Conclusion On the relief of Probabilities the Magistrates administration would find that Deed, Charlie, Jake as well as Bella are all partners of Magic Zillions due to the evidence and supporting cases mentioned to a higher place and all would have to contribute to the $30,000 to the complainant, Mr.. Laurent to strain the injures he faced upon entering the premise of the suspects, Magic Zillions intelligent Issues warranter cognisance and learn course of instruction (for Nancy Johnson and different too situated employees)Nancy Johnson and other employees were terminated from their jobs by the administrator of the caller, US Bancorp Comprehensive universe assistance Benefit programme Committee. The Ca social occasion of Johnsons termination of piece of work is forelandstrong and perfect(a) act when Johnson doorwayed the points of her supervisor containing the 2002 performance train of the conjunctions employees.When Johnson was denied the interruption recompense (she was able to approach shot a file that contains the proposed merging of US Bancorp with other company some employees would be terminated with severance allowance, except those who were mingled in swinish misconduct), she pass along for a drumhead astuteness to the regularise flirt. The district solicit of law prosperous Johnson arguing that the company did not cave in a bail study formation that would prevent employees from openinging the files of the company. The commission though wrote an woo to the electrical set royal court arguing that the court erred in its rendition of the provisions of the aim. The circuit court concur to th e arguments of the committee, arguing that since no official reading material as to the delectation of the monetary value froward and gross misconduct, the administrator of the plan can practise these terms to quasi(prenominal) situations. The severance payment to Johnson was therefore denied. info auspices sentiency and training programs then should be knowing based on the questionable electronic calculating machine Fraud and call out Act of 1984. The enactment criminalizes unauthorized access to a protect com poseer with the objective to bump knowledge, defraud, obtain anything of value or cause prostitute to a computing device ( pledge Awareness Laws, http//www.massachusetts.edu/lawsfaq/faq.cfm7). The so-called protected estimator is a data processor use for exotic or communication purposes (as in the case of the plaintiff) and for interstate inter execution. Without assurance from the part of abnegation or the unconnected Affairs, accessing reading fr om verbalise institutions is deemed il licit.Also read Explain ratified Issues, Policies and Procedures Relevant to appraisal overlap of passwords, computer fraud, and damage of native federal instruction are too deemed illegal. The law was extended to include mystical computers. In the case of the defendant (the corporation), it mustiness institute narrower definitions as to the terms impartful and gross misconduct. This will definitely overly narrow the options for employees who are accessing important information from the companys database. The employees must be first inform ( by memorandum) of the sites allowed to use during office work. gage Awareness and develop Program (for Scott Moulton)The plaintiff, Scott Moulton incriminate the defendant of investigate the antecedents network of clients. suspect claims statements from Moulton concerning the defendant were defamatory. starting signal is the statement do by Moulton to C.J. Johns, information systems manage r for the Cherokee Countys Sheriffs routine (December 19, 1999) that defendant had created credentials jeopardizes and that defendants network employees were stupid. The bit is the statements made by Moulton that the way defendant planned to connect the Police Department to two systems created a security risk from the profits. Lastly, statements from the plaintiff state that defendants network had created a security risk.The plaintiff though argued that these statements were however opinions. People may agree or disagree with the statements made. The court though granted the defendant unofficial imagination for the stroke of the plaintiff to footrace a put test in the project. The plaintiff was as well granted a summary judgment for the failure of the defendant to reduce the security risks.The US relation passed a card on July 2004, stating that internet examine of contractors to political relation websites (contractors duly authorise to negotiate for the bodily s tructure of website connections between disposal offices) can only be legal on third counts 1) trenchant does not in any way create security risks for the brass office involved, 2) the probe would not offspring to malversation of any human race information, and 3) such probing must be requested by the client regime office, with approval from its head office. Though the case was a posteriori since the line was passed before the case was filed, it would be level-headed for government offices to pass the guidelines of the law on internet probing of intergovernmental offices. Hence, law analysts precept the law as the most Balearic forethought of the government from hackers.Security Awareness and Training Program (for Dewey Watkins)The plaintiff, Dewey Watkins requested the district court to cancel a computer access calculate that had been delegate to him and was being used (with the supervisors approval) by another authorized employee. The code provided access to underco ver records maintained for Tennessees Medicaid Program. The plaintiff argued that the action of the supervisor violate the confidentiality provision of the state law. The plaintiff likewise accused explosive detection system of terminating his employment when the former refused to participate in the illegal conduct. The circuit court however affirmed the finis of the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of EDS, for the designer that Tennessee law does not conflict with the human beings provision of the Confidentiality Law. in that respect was no deduction that other employees also use the computer access code, and if there was such a case, it would be legal. It is remarkable that the same law discussed in case 1 also applies in this case. Sharing of passwords to access populace documents is clearly command by law. no.etheless, although the terms public information was the focus of the case, it should be noted that public information are information that have direct tangency to the public in general. This constitutes government programs, strategic social and sparing planning, and of course interstate activities. Security consciousness programs must be based on the definition of public information in order to rationalise any instances of sharing passwords or show information from government-locked and secured database.ReferencesNancy J. Johnson v. US Bancorp united States dally of compendiums for the Eight Circuit. Appeal from the United States partition apostrophize of the district of Minnesota. September 9, 2005.Security Awareness Laws. 2006. University of Massachusetts. universal resource locator http//www.massachusetts.edu/lawsfaq/faq.cfm7. Retrieved September 14, 2007.Scott Allen Moulton and vane Installation computing machine Services, Inc., Plaintiffs v. VC3, Defendant. United States order Court, Atlanta Division.Watkins v. EDS. none 100-CV-434-TWT. United States Court of Appeals No. 03-6353. United states Court of A ppeals for the Sixth Circuit. November 2, 2004.Legal IssuesSecurity Awareness and Training Program (for Nancy Johnson and other similarly situated employees)Nancy Johnson and other employees were terminated from their jobs by the administrator of the company, US Bancorp Comprehensive Welfare Benefit Plan Committee. The Cause of Johnsons termination of employment is willful and gross misconduct when Johnson accessed the files of her supervisor containing the 2002 performance level of the companys employees.When Johnson was denied the severance payment (she was able to access a file that contains the proposed merging of US Bancorp with another company some employees would be terminated with severance payment, except those who were involved in gross misconduct), she requested for a summary judgment to the district court. The district court favored Johnson arguing that the company did not establish a security information system that would prevent employees from accessing the files of t he company. The committee though wrote an appeal to the circuit court arguing that the court erred in its interpretation of the provisions of the plan. The circuit court agreed to the arguments of the committee, arguing that since no official interpretation as to the use of the terms willful and gross misconduct, the administrator of the plan can apply these terms to similar situations. The severance payment to Johnson was therefore denied.Information security awareness and training programs then should be designed based on the so-called Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984. The statute criminalizes unauthorized access to a protected computer with the intent to obtain information, defraud, obtain anything of value or cause damage to a computer (Security Awareness Laws, http//www.massachusetts.edu/lawsfaq/faq.cfm7). The so-called protected computer is a computer used for foreign or communication purposes (as in the case of the plaintiff) and for interstate interaction. Without author ization from the Department of Defense or the Foreign Affairs, accessing information from said institutions is deemed illegal.Also read Explain Legal Issues, Policies and Procedures Relevant to AssessmentSharing of passwords, computer fraud, and damage of essential federal information are also deemed illegal. The law was extended to include private computers. In the case of the defendant (the corporation), it must institute narrower definitions as to the terms willful and gross misconduct. This will definitely also narrow the options for employees who are accessing important information from the companys database. The employees must be first acquainted ( by memorandum) of the sites allowed to use during office work.Security Awareness and Training Program (for Scott Moulton)The plaintiff, Scott Moulton accused the defendant of probing the formers network of clients. Defendant claims statements from Moulton concerning the defendant were defamatory. First is the statement made by Moult on to C.J. Johns, information systems manager for the Cherokee Countys Sheriffs Office (December 19, 1999) that defendant had created security risks and that defendants network employees were stupid. The second is the statements made by Moulton that the way defendant planned to connect the Police Department to two systems created a security risk from the internet. Lastly, statements from the plaintiff said that defendants network had created a security risk.The plaintiff though argued that these statements were merely opinions. People may agree or disagree with the statements made. The court though granted the defendant summary judgment for the failure of the plaintiff to run a put test in the project. The plaintiff was also granted a summary judgment for the failure of the defendant to reduce the security risks.The US Congress passed a bill on July 2004, stating that internet probing of contractors to government websites (contractors duly approved to negotiate for the construction of website connections between government offices) can only be legal on three counts 1) probing does not in any way create security risks for the government office involved, 2) the probing would not result to malversation of any public information, and 3) such probing must be requested by the client government office, with approval from its head office. Though the case was a posteriori since the bill was passed before the case was filed, it would be good for government offices to follow the guidelines of the law on internet probing of intergovernmental offices. Hence, law analysts saw the law as the most Balearic safeguard of the government from hackers.Security Awareness and Training Program (for Dewey Watkins)The plaintiff, Dewey Watkins requested the district court to cancel a computer access code that had been assigned to him and was being used (with the supervisors approval) by another authorized employee. The code provided access to confidential records maintained for Tennesse es Medicaid Program. The plaintiff argued that the action of the supervisor violated the confidentiality provision of the state law. The plaintiff also accused EDS of terminating his employment when the former refused to participate in the illegal conduct. The circuit court however affirmed the decision of the district court to grant summary judgment in favor of EDS, for the reason that Tennessee law does not conflict with the general provision of the Confidentiality Law.There was no proof that other employees also use the computer access code, and if there was such a case, it would be legal. It is noteworthy that the same law discussed in case 1 also applies in this case. Sharing of passwords to access public documents is clearly prohibited by law. Nonetheless, although the terms public information was the focus of the case, it should be noted that public information are information that have direct link to the public in general. This constitutes government programs, strategic soci al and economic planning, and of course interstate activities. Security awareness programs must be based on the definition of public information in order to vindicate any instances of sharing passwords or revealing information from government-locked and secured database.ReferencesNancy J. Johnson v. US Bancorp United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit. Appeal from the United States District Court of the District of Minnesota. September 9, 2005.Security Awareness Laws. 2006. University of Massachusetts. URL http//www.massachusetts.edu/lawsfaq/faq.cfm7. Retrieved September 14, 2007.Scott Allen Moulton and Network Installation Computer Services, Inc., Plaintiffs v. VC3, Defendant. United States District Court, Atlanta Division.Watkins v. EDS. NO. 100-CV-434-TWT. United States Court of Appeals No. 03-6353. United states Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. November 2, 2004.