legal studies assignment
kkrtiksjthia77
LegalsExam3.docxGoyal 4
Aayushman Sahuwala Goyal
Prof. Ronald Washburn
LGLS 211 - AE
14 December 2015
1) Two truck drivers for a moving company, while loading a desk, found $1000 that had fallen out of the desk. They knew who the owner was but instead of returning it they decided to keep the money and split it evenly. An hour later driver #1 decided they did not want to go ahead with the plan and instead wanted to return the money, whereupon driver #2 pulled a knife out and demanded that driver #1 hand over the money to him. The bills were all counterfeit. What crimes have been committed?
From the start of the scenario, there were many crimes committed. The truck drivers may have happened to find the $1000 that had fallen out of the desk, but they know who it belonged to. Because they knew who the owner was, and decided to keep it anyway, they are responsible for committing larceny from the person (stealing or attempting to steal certain goods from another person) (RI Criminal Laws, 11-41-7). Although the usual penalty for this crime is imprisonment for one to ten years, the fact that they stole less than $1500 automatically reduces this sentence to a maximum of one year, or a fine not exceeding that of $500 (RI Criminal Laws, 11-41-5). Driver #1 changing his mind would not alter the repercussions in any way as he is still guilty of larceny. The fact that his action composed of the two legal aspects of a crime - actus rea (prohibited act) and mens rea (mental intent) means he is guilty (Textbook, Melvin & Katz).
Because driver #2 pulled out a knife and demanded that driver #1 hand over the money to him, he is responsible for robbery (RI Criminal Laws, 11-39-1), and assault with the intent to commit a specified felony (RI Criminal Laws, 11-5-1). An assault is when one intentionally instills fear or apprehension of an imminent battery upon another (Notes from class). Driver #2 assaulted driver #1 with the mental intent to rob him of the $500 he possessed, and so he is in violation of more than one crime.
Another person who has committed a crime is the owner of the $1000 that fell out of the desk. He is responsible for counterfeiting of notes which could, at any point of time, pass off as money and be issued for any debt of this state (RI Criminal Laws, 11-7-2). This is also a serious crime, as the penalty is imprisonment for a period not exceeding ten years nor less than two years (RI Criminal Laws, 11-7-2).
2) Discuss the legal relevance of the phrase “a bundle of sticks.”
A “bundle of sticks” is the easiest and most common way to explain ownership rights regarding property. With regard to personal property (Anything not connected to the earth), the titleholder is given exclusive use of the personal property and has the rights to sell, lease, or prohibit another from using the property (Textbook, Melvin & Katz). In the case of real property (Anything connected to the earth), the owners have the right to sell, gift, lease, and control the property and its improvements (Textbook, Melvin & Katz).
A bundle of sticks is legally relevant when discussing property because it is exclusively used in property, and has a meaning to it as well. Each stick in this bundle represents an individual right, and so this “bundle” can be separated and put back together. The bundle of sticks is not one unitary thing, but rather an accumulation of many different things.
Usually people believe that when you own something, you have the right to do whatever you want to it. This is not the case however, as certain rights don’t apply to all situations. For example, the right to control usually means one can do whatever they want with a product or an entity that they own. But, this can go beyond that as well. Leased cars are not owned by the person leasing them, but these people can still control them and use them whenever they wish to. Even in case of the right of destruction, people can usually destroy anything they own, but it depends on the product owned. If they own something toxic or hazardous, these items cannot simply be destroyed. A bundle of sticks seems legally relevant due to these reasons, and is really an astute way of simplifying the complexity of property ownership.
3) Carl, Dina, and Ed collectively run a floral shop. Carl is an expert in floral design, Dina is a business genius and Ed has $50,000 invested in the venture. They wish to better organize their business. Explain what is their best option and why?
Based on the information provided, the best option for Carl, Dina, and Ed would be to form a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP). The main benefit of this type of organization would be that Carl and Dina would be general partners, while Ed would be the limited partner. This decision would be optimal for all three partners as Carl and Dina would run the day-to-day operations and manage the business, while Ed would simply remain an investor and would not be able to participate in daily management activities (Textbook, Melvin & Katz). Another benefit of an LLP that even ties in to the first one would be the liability; partners are personally liable for their own negligence. LLP partners are generally not liable for the debts of the partnership, which proves advantageous for Carl and Dina (Textbook, Melvin & Katz). Due to the reasons listed above, the best option for them would be to form a Limited Liability Partnership.
4) Al writes a song in his head and spontaneously performs it live. Bob hears it and loves it. He records Al’s performance on his cellphone – records his own performance of it and sells 1,000,000 copies. What are Al’s rights?
Al seems to be the victim in this case, but is not rightly so – What Bob did is within the framework of the law, so Al will not be able to sue Bob for copyright infringement. A copyright is a right of literary property, as recognized and sanctioned by positive law (Textbook, Melvin & Katz). This basically gives the author the right to make multiple copies of the work and sell it to make profits. Because Al wrote the song in his head, and not on paper, he does not have the right to the song.
In order to gain copyright protection, the song has to possess three key features: It must be original, creative, and it must be fixed in a durable medium (Textbook, Melvin & Katz). The song is original, as Al used his own creative capabilities to create it. It is also creative, as mentioned previously. However, the song is not fixed in a durable medium. It had to be written down or recorded prior to the live performance for Al to be able to hold the rights to it, but since none of these measures were taken to ensure copyright protection, he has no rights in this case.
5) Since the 1950s Qualitex has used a special shade of green color on the pads that it makes and sells to dry cleaning firms for use on dry cleaning presses. In 1989 Jacobson (a rival) began using a similar color on press pads it sold. In 1991 Qualitex registered a trademark on the special color. Qualitex then sued Jacobson for infringement. Explain whether or not a trademark violation has been committed.
Although questionable, a trademark violation does seem to have been committed. The standard definition of a trademark is a nonfunctional, distinctive word, name, shape etc. that helps consumers to distinguish one product from another (Textbook, Melvin & Katz). If one could not differentiate between Jacobson’s press pads and Qualitex’s press pads, the latter would have the right to sue the former for trademark violation.
